Switch Theme:

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

40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/25 19:24:07


Post by: Salt donkey


Yes I do mean what the title says and no it’s not hyperbole. I truly believe 40k atm is worse than it’s been since 7th. Here’s why it beats the runners up of bad times; 2.0 marine winter and Wild West of 8th.

1) OP armies and powercreep: GW clearly still knows how to balance as the sisters codex came out in a good spot. However, all the other recent codex releases have been just flat OP. Orks as a whole are mostly fine, but their warboss on sharksquig, new pysker battlewagon, squig riders, and buggies all are broken units that will make the faction too good. Ad mech and drukhari have both been as bad as marines were at their peak (or at least as bad as marines where sans the 2 week period iron hands where extremely OP). This is indisputable as Dark Eldar still hold a 60+ winrate despite receiving all the nerfs pretty much everyone was asking for in my “Drukhari are OP thread”. Ad-mech had their chicken walkers buffed despite them being one of their best units pre-codex. Oh and GW somehow forgot that letting units stack a bunch of buffs at once isn’t a good idea. Right.

We haven’t seen this level of powercreep since 7th Ed. Ask necron players if their army is still good.

2) Rules complexity Is frankly way too high. In addition to releasing campaign books before all army books are out, GW seems to love creating rules for niche situations or solving issues in poor ways. Core is a perfect example of this. People weren’t castling vehicles for the heck of it, they were doing it because it was
the only way to make them efficient enough with -1 to hit heavy weapons. Now vehicles suck in large part because GW felt they needed to “balance” something that hadn’t even proven itself to be broken. Oh but they can shoot into CC! You just need to have a spreadsheet to figure out all the exceptions for what you can and can’t shoot at/with a vehicle in CC. Because GW needed to “balance” the “unfairness” that are vehicles. There are lot of these dumb restrictions like this. From limiting “commander” HQs to 1 per detachment rather than just using the blanket rule of 3 (here’s an idea GW, why just make sure commander units aren’t broken to begin with?) to making An “Always Sunny” level convoluted keyword system, it’s clear GW loves injecting complex restrictions into 9th.

Add in stuff like formatio… I mean “armies of renown”, tons of stratagems, relics, Warlord traits, and complex unit profiles, and all of sudden the game is just as messy as it was in 7th. Oh and FAQs, while nice, seem to have to fix more and more and therefore are too much now as well. I doubt even die-hard ad mech players can explain all the rules they have access to.

3) Price.
GW just loves beating inflation. The price bump this game has gotten was too extreme. This will even out over time, but it was much easier for me to justify a purchase in 8th than in 9th, which combined with the above problems, has decreased what I’ve bought considerably.

So Conclusion/TLDR 40k right now is an terrible spot due to the following. The balance is at its worst despite its complexity and restrictions being at there highest. Despite all this, I’m expected to pay an extreme premium to play right now. That leaves models as the only thing keeping the game afloat, and those have been good for around 7 years now.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/25 19:28:53


Post by: Irkjoe


Yes, have you considered older editions or other games? Also if you prioritize good rules and low price you might be playing the wrong game.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/25 19:32:18


Post by: Formosa


I have been playing 4th with a few buddies, my sister is playing her Star Phantoms primaris force quite happily too and we were surprised how easy it was to port over things from 8th/9th to 4th.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/25 19:33:39


Post by: Bago


I am having a blast and more fun than ever. But I also dont get to play too often and am not playing hardcore competitively


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/25 19:35:24


Post by: Blackie


I agree only on point 3), prices have become too high. To the point that I'll just stick with what I have, probably forever. In fact in the last 3-4 years I've invested in necromunda and old fantasy armies, not 40k (and not AoS since I don't like it).

But I disagree about OPness, we're not even remotely near 7th levels. Even drukhari at their best aren't as oppressive as 7th SM, eldar or tau. Really, not even remotely. Oh, and necrons are still good, very good actually.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/25 19:37:54


Post by: Salt donkey


 Irkjoe wrote:
Yes, have you considered older editions or other games? Also if you prioritize good rules and low price you might be playing the wrong game.


I said since “7th” I don’t think the game is capable of being as bad it was in 7th, as at least now things die (too quickly, but that’s better than not at all). Also I buy into this game for both rules and models. I would have bought Bel’la’kor just for the model (had there been any supply) However, I wouldn’t have bought into a legion of shadow army because of the current game state.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/25 19:42:16


Post by: Glumy


Wonderful time to start playing Horus Heresy.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/25 19:45:07


Post by: Salt donkey


 Blackie wrote:
I agree only on point 3), prices have become too high. To the point that I'll just stick with what I have, probably forever. In fact in the last 3-4 years I've invested in necromunda and old fantasy armies, not 40k (and not AoS since I don't like it).

But I disagree about OPness, we're not even remotely near 7th levels. Even drukhari at their best aren't as oppressive as 7th SM, eldar or tau. Really, not even remotely. Oh, and necrons are still good, very good actually.


I never claimed now was worse than 7th. That said I actually don’t think right now is much better than 7th. Tau-dar for example was around a low 60% win rate army at tournaments (around what drukhari have now after their nerfs). It just felt worse at a more casual level then because the competitive/casual divide was much more pronounced then than it is now. With more information now, more people play better armies at all levels than they did in the past. Compound this with the rules complexity then, made it much harder for people to move from casual to competitive.

And no necrons are not competitive at all. I have yet to lose to my buddies necrons playing deathguard and necrons had a 36% win rate at smaller tournaments last week, with a low 40%win rates at larger events the previous weeks. With orks coming out I only see this going down further,


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/25 19:53:28


Post by: The Red Hobbit


 Blackie wrote:
I agree only on point 3), prices have become too high. To the point that I'll just stick with what I have, probably forever. In fact in the last 3-4 years I've invested in necromunda and old fantasy armies, not 40k (and not AoS since I don't like it).

But I disagree about OPness, we're not even remotely near 7th levels. Even drukhari at their best aren't as oppressive as 7th SM, eldar or tau. Really, not even remotely. Oh, and necrons are still good, very good actually.


That's a tough one. 7th had a lot of obscenely broken things like scat bikes, D-Weapons, Trip Tide and Rhinos so bad you had to give them away for free. Nothing in 8th or 9th comes close to that. Hypothetically if 9th winds up with 8 over powered factions how to decide which is worse, 3 riddiculous broken factions or 8 overpowered ones? Hard to say to be honest but we're not there yet.

There was a sense of runaway power creep when the AdMech & Dark Eldar Codexes were released. Space Marines and Sisters rolled back some of the power levels, not surprised since they were strong in 8.5, typical GW overshoots a release then corrects in the next update. Necrons seem like the most power reasonable release so far, I was hoping all future Codexes would gravitate towards it's power level.

Oh and completely agee the game has gotten too expensive, both in models and books. What's the point of buying a rule book that's been rushed out and is riddled with errata. It's a shame seeing infantry go up in price per model whether it's Guard Squads, Dire Avengers or Boyz.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/25 19:55:27


Post by: Blackie


Tournaments data don't say everything. Competitive levels in 7th meant playing with extremely skewed lists, that win rate didn't reflect most of the casual gaming. Now competitive lists are much closer to casual ones, which is a huge improvement. During 7th competitive skewed lists were flat out impossibile to defeat for all those players who refused/couldn't chase the flavor of the month.

Now things are really much better as a competitive drukhari list with a 60% win rate at tournaments should have a very similar win rate at casual levels.

A competitive 7th list, for example tau with 5 riptides, had 100% win rate at casual levels even if in tournaments was 60%. At some point I had like 10k points of orks during 7th and there was nothing, litterally nothing I could do against the 6-7 top armies (I include SW and DA at least, probably even Necrons) if they brought a tournament list. Now I have 60% of that collection and I managed to play reasonably fair games against Ad Mech, Deathguard, SM and Drukhari so far as I feel like I can really win 3, 4 or 5 games out of ten matches against them.

With a proper 9th edition codex I think I can reverse the odds and get myself a 50-60% win rates against those top tier factions.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/25 19:57:28


Post by: RaptorusRex


Have you considered not being a meta chaser and playing with like-minded players? Just a thought.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/25 20:04:57


Post by: Sim-Life


 RaptorusRex wrote:
Have you considered not being a meta chaser and playing with like-minded players? Just a thought.


Like it or not the meta influences the game because GW is pretty clearly using tournament data to make a very rough stab at balance. Also not everyone has the luxury to choose from multiple groups to play with.

Also I agree with OP. The only editions I chose to quit 40k is 7th and 9th. Also I completely forgot vehicle can fire in CC now at all.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/25 20:24:50


Post by: NinthMusketeer


The blatant power creep between 8th and 9th codex is what pushed me to the breaking point. I'm selling out of 40k for the most part, will keep tabs and come back if/when a future edition improves the situation.

Or if an obliterator cult army becomes a thing.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/25 20:25:16


Post by: Salt donkey


 Sim-Life wrote:
 RaptorusRex wrote:
Have you considered not being a meta chaser and playing with like-minded players? Just a thought.


Like it or not the meta influences the game because GW is pretty clearly using tournament data to make a very rough stab at balance. Also not everyone has the luxury to choose from multiple groups to play with.

Also I agree with OP. The only editions I chose to quit 40k is 7th and 9th. Also I completely forgot vehicle can fire in CC now at all.


Agreed on all points. Also don’t worry, it won’t matter that you don’t know vehicles can shoot in CC in about 99% of situations. Similar to the soulburn rule in 7th in its relevancy (although I’m pretty sure for some reason GW doesn’t know this).



40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/25 20:34:10


Post by: Egyptian Space Zombie


The one thing that I don't like is how they keep adding needless complexity to the game. A good ruleset is simple, yet it allows for nuance and depth of play. With 40k, they just keep adding stuff on to sell books. Maybe 10th edition will wipe everything away again and change all the stats, thus restarting the index to codex to supplement cycle.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/25 20:48:57


Post by: RaptorusRex


 Sim-Life wrote:
 RaptorusRex wrote:
Have you considered not being a meta chaser and playing with like-minded players? Just a thought.


Like it or not the meta influences the game because GW is pretty clearly using tournament data to make a very rough stab at balance. Also not everyone has the luxury to choose from multiple groups to play with.

Also I agree with OP. The only editions I chose to quit 40k is 7th and 9th. Also I completely forgot vehicle can fire in CC now at all.


Maybe, just maybe, actually talk to people. "Hey, could you par down the power of your list a bit?"

I am tired of people looking for something to get mad about, getting performatively outraged over GW's newest release by taking something completely out of context, and then expecting that'll be how things will go from now on. They refuse to believe people will self-police, and assume that every table is the meta-chasers' domain. Were Eradicators the thing that broke the game? Were Space Marines? Were Deathwing? No? It's almost like this is all gak. Yet we keep succumbing to the monthly panic, like clockwork.

This has been the pattern for the whole of 9th so far. Maybe it's worse on DakkaDakka, because I don't see this gak on B&C.

TL;DR People need to stop looking at things in isolation and view them in a holistic way. Don't lose your head, and think.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/25 21:01:05


Post by: The Red Hobbit


 Egyptian Space Zombie wrote:
The one thing that I don't like is how they keep adding needless complexity to the game. A good ruleset is simple, yet it allows for nuance and depth of play. With 40k, they just keep adding stuff on to sell books. Maybe 10th edition will wipe everything away again and change all the stats, thus restarting the index to codex to supplement cycle.

You know I wouldn't be surprised if they level it all again with 10th edition. Make Strength and Toughness for infantry on a 1-6 scale, get rid of all the sacred cows of S4 weapon profiles and just have something wildly different. But I also think that T5 Orks is testing the waters for that.

I really liked 8th and I love the objective based gameplay of 9th I'm just really disappointed by the heaps of complexity they keep showering on the game.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/25 21:01:09


Post by: a_typical_hero


Agree with point 3. Prices could take a break or a decrease. It was always kinda expensive, sadly.

Don't agree with point 1 and partly agree with point 2. Some rules add extra time with little actual game impact.

I'm enjoying the game overall, though.

Salt donkey wrote:
Yes I do mean what the title says and no it’s not hyperbole...Oh but they can shoot into CC! You just need to have a spreadsheet to figure out all the exceptions for what you can and can’t shoot at/with a vehicle in CC...

Pistols can shoot during the shooting phase, Vehicles can shoot everything with -1 to hit and can't shoot "Blast" at all. Hardly a (non hyperbolic) spreadsheet


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/25 21:15:46


Post by: Umbros


I do wonder how much knowing the data about how obscenely broken DE and AM are skews the narrative here. I'm not saying that knowing more is a bad thing, just the effect it has on the comparison.

Broadly speaking 9th was a good edition up until Drukhari. Although I think the rules are vastly over complicated, I could accept that given that the codexes seemed to be of far higher quality than in prior editions. Though not perfect, they really felt internally balanced and played enjoyably against each other.

Ad Mech and Drukhari are a disaster from a rules design and a balance POV. They are so complicated and unintuitive. Although armies like Necrons have some over-complexity (Command Protocols, their core inanity), they play like they look. Same with the other books.

One of the things I find frustrating is how often GW add rules for no conceivable reasons when they could just use the basic rules. I think here of vehicles - give them more wounds, we don't need ramshackle nonsense! The Ork T5 change was a brilliant change for this exact reason.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/25 21:31:38


Post by: Argive


I don't see complexity.
I see rules bloat and power creep


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/25 21:54:24


Post by: Gene St. Ealer


 The Red Hobbit wrote:

That's a tough one. 7th had a lot of obscenely broken things like scat bikes, D-Weapons, Trip Tide and Rhinos so bad you had to give them away for free. Nothing in 8th or 9th comes close to that. Hypothetically if 9th winds up with 8 over powered factions how to decide which is worse, 3 riddiculous broken factions or 8 overpowered ones? Hard to say to be honest but we're not there yet.


I think this was true... until Stupid Succubus (which TBF got nerfed). Until Enriched Rounds and Galvanic Volley. And if we look back at 8th, there was stuff like the Goonhammer Iron Hands build.

7th is easy to meme on, but if we're being fair, there are still plenty of absurdly broken builds that have cropped up post 7th.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/25 22:04:16


Post by: Jidmah


I can't take a thread serious that right out of the gate complains about things being that aren't released yet, have never see the tabletop and are perfectly in line with things that orks already have.

Orks are allowed to get good stuff once in a while. Sorry, not sorry for orks not being the punching bag that can't fight back that you want them to be.

Not to mention that about nobody knows how ork are going to perform in tournaments. All I see is battle reports of established cookie-cutter lists from 8th updated to 9th that were already declared "best builds" completely failing to win games and getting crushed by other 9th edition codices.

Stopped reading after that.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/25 22:09:03


Post by: Voss


'Worst point since 7th edition' is a pretty low bar. That's a couple years and a beta test ruleset.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/25 22:13:13


Post by: Daedalus81


Salt donkey wrote:

1) OP armies and powercreep: GW clearly still knows how to balance as the sisters codex came out in a good spot. However, all the other recent codex releases have been just flat OP. Orks as a whole are mostly fine, but their warboss on sharksquig, new pysker battlewagon, squig riders, and buggies all are broken units that will make the faction too good. Ad mech and drukhari have both been as bad as marines were at their peak (or at least as bad as marines where sans the 2 week period iron hands where extremely OP). This is indisputable as Dark Eldar still hold a 60+ winrate despite receiving all the nerfs pretty much everyone was asking for in my “Drukhari are OP thread”. Ad-mech had their chicken walkers buffed despite them being one of their best units pre-codex. Oh and GW somehow forgot that letting units stack a bunch of buffs at once isn’t a good idea. Right.



And yet the "bad" Necrons book went 6-2 losing to Nayden in round 8 and beating Admech, Sisters, DE, and others with Immortals, Lychguard, and min sized Scarabs. The mission design allows far more diverse lists and way better balance than any edition of 40K. To state it is in it's worst state is wildly offbase despite the issues that need addressing.



40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/25 22:19:30


Post by: PenitentJake


Yeah, we can have this conversation again in January after 5 more dexes are out. Making a judgement about an edition before half its dexes are out is premature at best.



40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/25 22:34:07


Post by: Insectum7


^"Wait and see"?

Well I'm waiting and seeing if I'm going to buy back into 'current' 40k. All my GW purchasing has ceased.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/25 22:35:26


Post by: ccs


Salt donkey wrote:

And no necrons are not competitive at all. I have yet to lose to my buddies necrons playing deathguard and necrons had a 36% win rate at smaller tournaments last week, with a low 40%win rates at larger events the previous weeks. With orks coming out I only see this going down further,


Then your buddies a bad Necron player.

Tourney win %s? Oh no, people I don't know at events I don't attend only achieved an x% win rate for whatever reason! Conclusion: I guess it's time to sell my own Necrons off before their #s somehow bleed over & effect me.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/25 22:40:08


Post by: JohnnyHell


“No it’s not hyperbole.”

Yes, it is hyperbole.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/25 22:58:36


Post by: The Red Hobbit


 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
I think this was true... until Stupid Succubus (which TBF got nerfed). Until Enriched Rounds and Galvanic Volley. And if we look back at 8th, there was stuff like the Goonhammer Iron Hands build.

7th is easy to meme on, but if we're being fair, there are still plenty of absurdly broken builds that have cropped up post 7th.

Oh for sure, IH 8.5 was bad, but was it undercosted Wraithknight with D-Cannons bad? Or Invisibility on a super friends deathstar bad? I think 7th still takes the cake with most absurdly broken units/combos. I think there has been some extremely good stuff in 8th and 9th but nothing that quite reaches the extremes of 7th.

My thought is which is a worse scenario. An edition where 3 Factions are bonkers? Or an edition where half the factions are so good you hate to play against them with an underpowered codex? To be honest I'm not sure which one feels worse as a player. It's all hypothetical though, while powercreep between 8th and 9th is real there hasn't really been a 'bad' codex so far. Everything is getting more powerful (and more complicated), I thought for sure by now we'd get a completely underwhelming codex. Every new codex gets doom and gloom I'm talking about one that is universally derided as double plus ungood.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/25 23:00:16


Post by: Strg Alt


There is an easy solution to the problem:

Play Oldhammer. Now you never have to buy codexes and new editions again. What joy! Doing it since end of 5th.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/25 23:04:02


Post by: Argive


 The Red Hobbit wrote:
 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
I think this was true... until Stupid Succubus (which TBF got nerfed). Until Enriched Rounds and Galvanic Volley. And if we look back at 8th, there was stuff like the Goonhammer Iron Hands build.

7th is easy to meme on, but if we're being fair, there are still plenty of absurdly broken builds that have cropped up post 7th.

Oh for sure, IH 8.5 was bad, but was it undercosted Wraithknight with D-Cannons bad? Or Invisibility on a super friends deathstar bad? I think 7th still takes the cake with most absurdly broken units/combos. I think there has been some extremely good stuff in 8th and 9th but nothing that quite reaches the extremes of 7th.

My thought is which is a worse scenario. An edition where 3 Factions are bonkers? Or an edition where half the factions are so good you hate to play against them with an underpowered codex? To be honest I'm not sure which one feels worse as a player. It's all hypothetical though, while powercreep between 8th and 9th is real there hasn't really been a 'bad' codex so far. Everything is getting more powerful (and more complicated), I thought for sure by now we'd get a completely underwhelming codex. Every new codex gets doom and gloom I'm talking about one that is universally derided as double plus ungood.


If anything 8th and 9th at least has a relatively quick turn around on FAQing the obviously broken stuff and the nerf bat gets brought down very frequently.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/25 23:12:04


Post by: Irkjoe


 Strg Alt wrote:
There is an easy solution to the problem:

Play Oldhammer. Now you never have to buy codexes and new editions again. What joy! Doing it since end of 5th.


This and horus heresy. The difficulty is convincing new people to play that way in my experience. For some reason people who don't even play in tournaments insist on adhering to whatever standards their favorite gt and gw put out. And as an aside, I would buy the books if they had good writing/art but they're crap.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/25 23:40:40


Post by: yukishiro1


PenitentJake wrote:
Yeah, we can have this conversation again in January after 5 more dexes are out. Making a judgement about an edition before half its dexes are out is premature at best.



"We have to wait and see for at least 18 months to make a judgment about a new edition" kinda says it all re: how successfully GW has cultivated extremely low expectations.

No, we don't. The game may or may not be better in January than it is now; that doesn't change what it is like now. They had a good thing going in 9th, then tossed it into the toilet with Drukhari and Ad Mech. Orks presumably won't be as bad as either of those because frankly how could you? But the game is broken right now, and GW broke it. And it's not about "waiting and seeing," because it wasn't broken before Drukhari. The game's in a far worse spot than it was 5 months ago.



40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/25 23:42:30


Post by: Arachnofiend


Voss wrote:
'Worst point since 7th edition' is a pretty low bar. That's a couple years and a beta test ruleset.

It's basically only competing with the Index era and the Iron Hands meta... playing Necrons I'm a lot happier now than I was in either of those metas, that's for sure.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/25 23:47:36


Post by: Gert


Not sure how balance is bad if every single 9th Ed Codex has been good against the other 9th Ed Codexes. Personally I'm quite happy that my games aren't over during the list building phase like in 6th and 7th. Oh you're playing a 6th Edition Codex against my 4th, OK thats great. Oh what you're playing Iyanden with 15 Wraithguard and two Wraithknights, oh boy this is going to be fun.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/25 23:59:13


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 RaptorusRex wrote:
Have you considered not being a meta chaser and playing with like-minded players? Just a thought.
I checked, and you were the first person in the thread to mention 'meta'.

Odd thing, then, to accuse the OP of 'meta-chasing'.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 00:20:30


Post by: RaptorusRex


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 RaptorusRex wrote:
Have you considered not being a meta chaser and playing with like-minded players? Just a thought.
I checked, and you were the first person in the thread to mention 'meta'.

Odd thing, then, to accuse the OP of 'meta-chasing'.


I can't extrapolate that from him talking about tournament win rates? C'mon, mang.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 00:20:42


Post by: Salt donkey


 Gert wrote:
Not sure how balance is bad if every single 9th Ed Codex has been good against the other 9th Ed Codexes. Personally I'm quite happy that my games aren't over during the list building phase like in 6th and 7th. Oh you're playing a 6th Edition Codex against my 4th, OK thats great. Oh what you're playing Iyanden with 15 Wraithguard and two Wraithknights, oh boy this is going to be fun.


I think this just comes down to the differences between the level of competition you’ve played then and now narrowing between your own skill gap. You’re probably just a more competitive player now and/or the people you are playing are less so than they where then.

From my standard games, going in and seeing a bunch of raiders or chicken walkers with 20 man ranger squad supports, feels like equivalent to being down a bishop or rook in chess. Certainly not impossible to overcome if I believe I can play much better than my opponent, but a massive disadvantage that’s going to be too much for me to handle against a evenly marched player.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 00:25:38


Post by: RaptorusRex


Salt donkey wrote:
 Gert wrote:
Not sure how balance is bad if every single 9th Ed Codex has been good against the other 9th Ed Codexes. Personally I'm quite happy that my games aren't over during the list building phase like in 6th and 7th. Oh you're playing a 6th Edition Codex against my 4th, OK thats great. Oh what you're playing Iyanden with 15 Wraithguard and two Wraithknights, oh boy this is going to be fun.


I think this just comes down to the differences between the level of competition you’ve played then and now narrowing between your own skill gap. You’re probably just a more competitive player now and/or the people you are playing are less so than they where then.

From my standard games, going in and seeing a bunch of raiders or chicken walkers with 20 man ranger squad supports, feels like equivalent to being down a bishop or rook in chess. Certainly not impossible to overcome if I believe I can play much better than my opponent, but a massive disadvantage that’s going to be too much for me to handle against a evenly marched player.


Listen, OP. I already said this once. Talk to your opponent and ask them to par their list down.



40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 00:39:00


Post by: Gert


I 100% guarantee that I have not increased my skills since 6th Edition. I played 9th Ed Deathwatch against 8th Ed T'au and got my bricks flipped.
The point I was trying to make is that even if I was playing a relatively good 7th Edition army like Daemonkin where I got bonuses for dying, fighting Iyanden Wraith lists with D-Flamers, Ynarri shenanigans or formations with 250pts of free stuff was still utterly awful and the game would usually be decided before the first model was put down. I haven't had that in 8th or 9th so far. 9th Codexes might be superior to 8th Codexes but at least the 8th Codexes aren't 3 editions out of date like the Orks had for about half of 7th Edition.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 00:42:45


Post by: ccs


yukishiro1 wrote:
PenitentJake wrote:
Yeah, we can have this conversation again in January after 5 more dexes are out. Making a judgement about an edition before half its dexes are out is premature at best.



"We have to wait and see for at least 18 months to make a judgment about a new edition" kinda says it all re: how successfully GW has cultivated extremely low expectations.

No, we don't. The game may or may not be better in January than it is now; that doesn't change what it is like now. They had a good thing going in 9th, then tossed it into the toilet with Drukhari and Ad Mech. Orks presumably won't be as bad as either of those because frankly how could you? But the game is broken right now, and GW broke it. And it's not about "waiting and seeing," because it wasn't broken before Drukhari. The game's in a far worse spot than it was 5 months ago.


And you know what? If you don't play against Drukhari or AdMech (& actually only against specific builds of either of them) the games still not broken.
EX;
Whatever the horrors of the Drukhari? Guess what? They had no effect on my most recent game where my Necrons faced off against some SM.
Likewise, when I encounter my buddies Kataphron based AdMech in our current Crusade? I seriously doubt the thought "OMG! This is broken" will ever cross my mind.
And in a few months when I get my Drukhari free* Drukari force onto the table? Aint nobody gonna be crying about getting mauled by Raiders/Succubus/etc.
(* I HAVE to have 1 elf in the list, own 1 elf model, & bring said model to the games - because I can't play without a HQ unit. Fortunately I can just throw him in Strat Reserve & ignore him most of the time. Otherwise it's all Talos/Cronos)


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 01:00:52


Post by: Insectum7


The saving grace of 7th was that a lot of the armies had gobs of crazy gak to bring to the table. But it made for totally inaccessible gaming if both people weren't playing with the same level of bonkers.

Balance wise I feel like 8th was worse than current 9th in the post Marine 2.0 period, but alot of GWs trends have just really turned me off the game since then. I was looking forward to 9th, but I dislike the way it's been handled.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 01:02:56


Post by: DeathKorp_Rider


Rules seem simple compared to previous editions. One armor value instead of multiple for different sides, no blast templates needed to use certain weapons…


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 01:08:12


Post by: Polonius


I think there are two lines of argument, and while one is clearly true but not necessarily bad, the other is murkier but certainly bad. On one hand, the game continues to layers rules and buffs over armies, turning the game into a form of intellectual sumo, where the goal is simply remember everything you have going. I think that's hard to argue against, but some people might like that.

As for balance.. nobody will ever agree. Even in the depths of times where everybody looks back and sees imbalance, people argued that the game was fine. We have more data now, but the exact same arguments that occurred 20 years ago still occur. The other issue is that really high end 40k isn't very indicative of general play, but nuggets of that play do filter down to casual or even newbie play. Tools that are easy to use, and have little counterplay, are probably on the whole bad for the game.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 01:16:20


Post by: AnomanderRake


DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
Rules seem simple compared to previous editions. One armor value instead of multiple for different sides, no blast templates needed to use certain weapons…


Eh. On one hand older editions have blasts, armour facings, and USRs; on the other hand 8th/9th has rerolls, auras, stratagems, and no USRs. I don't think the game's gotten any simpler.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 01:21:48


Post by: Polonius


 AnomanderRake wrote:
DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
Rules seem simple compared to previous editions. One armor value instead of multiple for different sides, no blast templates needed to use certain weapons…


Eh. On one hand older editions have blasts, armour facings, and USRs; on the other hand 8th/9th has rerolls, auras, stratagems, and no USRs. I don't think the game's gotten any simpler.


the core rules are far simpler than at any point, but the layers of rules that can affect a unit are deeper than I've ever seen.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 01:23:51


Post by: Argive


Bloat of rules upon more layered rules does not make the game more complex. Just makes it more adminy...


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 01:52:16


Post by: BrianDavion


 Strg Alt wrote:
There is an easy solution to the problem:

Play Oldhammer. Now you never have to buy codexes and new editions again. What joy! Doing it since end of 5th.


sure except 5th edition had it's power codices too. that said I find a lot of the time these complaints are "MY ARMY ISN'T OP!"


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 03:14:40


Post by: yukishiro1


ccs wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
PenitentJake wrote:
Yeah, we can have this conversation again in January after 5 more dexes are out. Making a judgement about an edition before half its dexes are out is premature at best.



"We have to wait and see for at least 18 months to make a judgment about a new edition" kinda says it all re: how successfully GW has cultivated extremely low expectations.

No, we don't. The game may or may not be better in January than it is now; that doesn't change what it is like now. They had a good thing going in 9th, then tossed it into the toilet with Drukhari and Ad Mech. Orks presumably won't be as bad as either of those because frankly how could you? But the game is broken right now, and GW broke it. And it's not about "waiting and seeing," because it wasn't broken before Drukhari. The game's in a far worse spot than it was 5 months ago.


And you know what? If you don't play against Drukhari or AdMech (& actually only against specific builds of either of them) the games still not broken.
EX;
Whatever the horrors of the Drukhari? Guess what? They had no effect on my most recent game where my Necrons faced off against some SM.
Likewise, when I encounter my buddies Kataphron based AdMech in our current Crusade? I seriously doubt the thought "OMG! This is broken" will ever cross my mind.
And in a few months when I get my Drukhari free* Drukari force onto the table? Aint nobody gonna be crying about getting mauled by Raiders/Succubus/etc.
(* I HAVE to have 1 elf in the list, own 1 elf model, & bring said model to the games - because I can't play without a HQ unit. Fortunately I can just throw him in Strat Reserve & ignore him most of the time. Otherwise it's all Talos/Cronos)


I assumed it was obvious my comment was about the competitive game. Yes, of course, if you operate in an environment where people deliberately shy away from bringing the best lists, the terrible imbalance GW has introduced into the game with two horribly overtuned codexes is less of a detriment. And the base game of 9th is better than 7th. But as a competitive game, 40k is as wrecked right now as it ever has been in the modern era.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 03:32:40


Post by: Racerguy180


Cuz it's not a competitive game, it's a vehicle to sell models.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 05:17:12


Post by: BrianDavion


ccs wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
PenitentJake wrote:
Yeah, we can have this conversation again in January after 5 more dexes are out. Making a judgement about an edition before half its dexes are out is premature at best.



"We have to wait and see for at least 18 months to make a judgment about a new edition" kinda says it all re: how successfully GW has cultivated extremely low expectations.

No, we don't. The game may or may not be better in January than it is now; that doesn't change what it is like now. They had a good thing going in 9th, then tossed it into the toilet with Drukhari and Ad Mech. Orks presumably won't be as bad as either of those because frankly how could you? But the game is broken right now, and GW broke it. And it's not about "waiting and seeing," because it wasn't broken before Drukhari. The game's in a far worse spot than it was 5 months ago.


And you know what? If you don't play against Drukhari or AdMech (& actually only against specific builds of either of them) the games still not broken.
EX;
Whatever the horrors of the Drukhari? Guess what? They had no effect on my most recent game where my Necrons faced off against some SM.
Likewise, when I encounter my buddies Kataphron based AdMech in our current Crusade? I seriously doubt the thought "OMG! This is broken" will ever cross my mind.
And in a few months when I get my Drukhari free* Drukari force onto the table? Aint nobody gonna be crying about getting mauled by Raiders/Succubus/etc.
(* I HAVE to have 1 elf in the list, own 1 elf model, & bring said model to the games - because I can't play without a HQ unit. Fortunately I can just throw him in Strat Reserve & ignore him most of the time. Otherwise it's all Talos/Cronos)


and before drukhari and admech people bitched whined and moaned about space marines. seriously, go back 6 months ago and you'll see the same "OMG IT'S BROKEN AND THE GAME IUS AWEFUL!" only instead f admech and drukhari it's space marines.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 05:18:00


Post by: ccs


yukishiro1 wrote:
ccs wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
PenitentJake wrote:
Yeah, we can have this conversation again in January after 5 more dexes are out. Making a judgement about an edition before half its dexes are out is premature at best.



"We have to wait and see for at least 18 months to make a judgment about a new edition" kinda says it all re: how successfully GW has cultivated extremely low expectations.

No, we don't. The game may or may not be better in January than it is now; that doesn't change what it is like now. They had a good thing going in 9th, then tossed it into the toilet with Drukhari and Ad Mech. Orks presumably won't be as bad as either of those because frankly how could you? But the game is broken right now, and GW broke it. And it's not about "waiting and seeing," because it wasn't broken before Drukhari. The game's in a far worse spot than it was 5 months ago.


And you know what? If you don't play against Drukhari or AdMech (& actually only against specific builds of either of them) the games still not broken.
EX;
Whatever the horrors of the Drukhari? Guess what? They had no effect on my most recent game where my Necrons faced off against some SM.
Likewise, when I encounter my buddies Kataphron based AdMech in our current Crusade? I seriously doubt the thought "OMG! This is broken" will ever cross my mind.
And in a few months when I get my Drukhari free* Drukari force onto the table? Aint nobody gonna be crying about getting mauled by Raiders/Succubus/etc.
(* I HAVE to have 1 elf in the list, own 1 elf model, & bring said model to the games - because I can't play without a HQ unit. Fortunately I can just throw him in Strat Reserve & ignore him most of the time. Otherwise it's all Talos/Cronos)


I assumed it was obvious my comment was about the competitive game. Yes, of course, if you operate in an environment where people deliberately shy away from bringing the best lists, the terrible imbalance GW has introduced into the game with two horribly overtuned codexes is less of a detriment. And the base game of 9th is better than 7th. But as a competitive game, 40k is as wrecked right now as it ever has been in the modern era.


Well thankfully competitive 40k is not the game.
It's merely one way to play. And a pretty poor one at that since no edition of 40k, WHFB, or AOS, has ever been well suited to the task (and some less so) - no matter the lip service paid to it atm.
The game is not broken. How you're choosing to to play it on the other hand....

As for deliberately shying away from bringing the best lists? BS. We're just making whatever we think is fun to build/paint/play.
Game works pretty well.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 05:47:58


Post by: yukishiro1


If you're not interested in competitive play that's totally fine. I certainly won't tell you the way you choose to play the game is wrong or "broken" - that would be rude.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 06:32:56


Post by: Sim-Life


 Polonius wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
Rules seem simple compared to previous editions. One armor value instead of multiple for different sides, no blast templates needed to use certain weapons…


Eh. On one hand older editions have blasts, armour facings, and USRs; on the other hand 8th/9th has rerolls, auras, stratagems, and no USRs. I don't think the game's gotten any simpler.


the core rules are far simpler than at any point, but the layers of rules that can affect a unit are deeper than I've ever seen.


40k is the Skyrim of tabletop games. Wide as an ocean but as deep as puddle. Calling 40k deep is insulting to games with actual depth. Any "depth" 40k has is just the illusion of choice.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 07:28:42


Post by: Jidmah


ccs wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
PenitentJake wrote:
Yeah, we can have this conversation again in January after 5 more dexes are out. Making a judgement about an edition before half its dexes are out is premature at best.



"We have to wait and see for at least 18 months to make a judgment about a new edition" kinda says it all re: how successfully GW has cultivated extremely low expectations.

No, we don't. The game may or may not be better in January than it is now; that doesn't change what it is like now. They had a good thing going in 9th, then tossed it into the toilet with Drukhari and Ad Mech. Orks presumably won't be as bad as either of those because frankly how could you? But the game is broken right now, and GW broke it. And it's not about "waiting and seeing," because it wasn't broken before Drukhari. The game's in a far worse spot than it was 5 months ago.


And you know what? If you don't play against Drukhari or AdMech (& actually only against specific builds of either of them) the games still not broken.
EX;
Whatever the horrors of the Drukhari? Guess what? They had no effect on my most recent game where my Necrons faced off against some SM.
Likewise, when I encounter my buddies Kataphron based AdMech in our current Crusade? I seriously doubt the thought "OMG! This is broken" will ever cross my mind.


This. When your opponents aren't chasing the meta and have the best of the best available immediately but only buy and paint at normal people's speed, even drukhari and admech are prefectly reasonable opponents - assuming you are piloting a 9th edition codex yourself.
Crusade helps with this in an unexpected way - in the beginning you don't have enough PL for the power lists, and if you build towards such a list, the nerf might come before you complete it and you are now "stuck" with just mediocre units that gathered up all the battle honors.from your battles so far.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 07:33:12


Post by: aphyon


I would tweak it just a bit-yes formation spam was the death of 7th but i would say it is in the worst place it has been since 6th as the worst rule set GW has put out. 7th was actually an improvement over it.

As some previous posters have pointed out going back and playing older editions is just fine. our group prefers 5th edition core rules and we have loads of fun with it.

An interesting point came up in an industry related stream i was watching that theorized that GW has seen the writing on the wall with things like 3d printing and free online resources and may be looking to make as much as they can off the tabletop game in the short term before they flush the entire thing in short order and focus on what they can control via warhammer+/video game IPs and the like.

Effectively squatting the entire tabletop wargaming community related to the warhammer IP.

Let us not forget the GW line from the last decade or so-"they are a model company first that happens to have a game attached to the model line."

What happens when they can no longer compete as a model company when somebody can 3d print any design they like for 28mm toy soldiers for about $0.10 each and large vehicle equal in size to a leman russ tank or predator for as little as $5.00 in raw materials. making the cost of buying the printer negligible at best.



40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 07:38:35


Post by: Karol


But the problem is not just dark eldar and ad mecha, but the fact that in order to have fun games people playing other factions, who have 9th ed or working codex adjust, or try to adjust to playing against them. If someone sees how ad mecha or dark eldar lists looked a few months ago, and started on that they, they would be buying models based on what could let them keep up or try to keep up with those armies. This means that the armies that can not do it, either require super specific lists , which often are just tournament lists, or they can't adjust at all, and then they have the options of investing a lot of money in to an army that will not work or some sort of miracles to happen.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 07:39:33


Post by: Gert


I really feel like people just need to have conversations with their regular opponents more often. A solid 60% of problems I see could be solved by a 5 minute conversation with your opponent to ask them to tone down their list. Personally I've been trying to vary my lists a lot more by playing smaller games so I'm not using my whole collection every single time.
I also feel like all the talk about combos and buff stacking is a bit weird because that's been my experience of 40k since like 5th Ed. The Wombo Combos have always been there, just not in the same way as before. Deathstars, Decurions, Super Friends, and atrociously balanced summoning rules from 5th-7th are some just off the top of my head.

The whole "3d printing will kill GW" thing is a joke to me. I have a lot of hobby time due to current circumstances but working full time with limited hobby? I don't have time to learn to 3d print or wait for models to print when I can just go to a GW and buy things that I can assemble fairly easily. Moreover, what 10-13 year old (average start age for Warhammer in my experience) or indeed their parents are going to buy a 3d printer? My friend who has no commitments can afford to sit around and print parts or models all day, the rest of our group doesn't have that luxury.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 07:40:50


Post by: Bosskelot


Really I'd say it's only Admech that are an actual problem currently.

Yes, Drukhari are strong and some of the Ork points costs look insane, but those are easy fixes. Drukhari had the worst of their exploits FAQ'd and now all that's a problem with them is points costs on a few units still. Drukhari players still enjoy playing the army and the book itself is remarkably well internally-balanced with a lot of options and flavour without being needlessly complex. It's a great book in that respect, as is the Sororitas one.

Admech though? Their issues go deeper than just points costs. They need a fundamental restructuring and redesign before the power level of the army can even really be addressed and even then I have yet to talk to an Admech player, comp or casual, that actually likes playing the new book. It doesn't matter that it's powerful; they literally don't enjoy playing it which is a huge blunder on GW's part.

The most damning thing said about it was a competitive player I know who uses Admech. He basically said everything he liked about the army was buffed and the styles of play he preferred to use were made better and given more attention. And yet for all that he played 4 games with the new codex and has now dropped the army and gone back to his Drukhari. He finds the new book confusingly braindead and needlessly complex at the same time while being so powerful and straightforward as to be uninteresting to play. This is a sentiment I've heard a lot of Admech players put forward tbh

GW made a lot of missteps with the Necron book but Admech are the worst codex of 9th from a design POV.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 07:47:00


Post by: Apple fox


 Gert wrote:
I really feel like people just need to have conversations with their regular opponents more often. A solid 60% of problems I see could be solved by a 5 minute conversation with your opponent to ask them to tone down their list. Personally I've been trying to vary my lists a lot more by playing smaller games so I'm not using my whole collection every single time.
I also feel like all the talk about combos and buff stacking is a bit weird because that's been my experience of 40k since like 5th Ed. The Wombo Combos have always been there, just not in the same way as before. Deathstars, Decurions, Super Friends, and atrociously balanced summoning rules from 5th-7th are some just off the top of my head.


I think with the conversation is that GW keeps adding onto that on what needs to discuss. I have never needed much in other games, but it seems 40k requires a lot at times. As well as pregame prep and other things.
A double edged sword so to think, when we play warmachine we start it mostly off about all the cool things. And quick summery of a few specific rules if playing one of the factions with something a little odd.

It’s also crazy to think, but I think there is more combos in 40k now where it just comes outta nowhere if you where not expecting it, or a unit seems way out of whack for what it is. So it’s a big burden I see for a lot of players :(
It’s a bit of a pain the huge burden that GW seems to put on players for what seems like a lesser payoff to me.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 07:49:50


Post by: Sim-Life


 Gert wrote:
I really feel like people just need to have conversations with their regular opponents more often. A solid 60% of problems I see could be solved by a 5 minute conversation with your opponent to ask them to tone down their list.


I used to make this argument during 8th but I've come to the realisation that if the game was good you should't NEED to ask people to tone down lists. In any of the other games I play I've never had to ask an opponent to play a certain way for us both to enjoy the game and I don't see why 40k should get a pass in that regard.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 07:51:32


Post by: Cyel


Here's a thing, WH40K has never been a particularly good game We may have had lower expectations in the past due to the lack of other, well-designed games to compare it to.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 07:59:58


Post by: Gert


Spoiler:
 Sim-Life wrote:

I used to make this argument during 8th but I've come to the realisation that if the game was good you should't NEED to ask people to tone down lists. In any of the other games I play I've never had to ask an opponent to play a certain way for us both to enjoy the game and I don't see why 40k should get a pass in that regard.

Its not the fault of the game if someone is a competitive person or that they have the money to get loads of stuff which results in them having a greater pool of units to choose from. I was very restricted in my Warhammer purchases compared to my friends when I was a young un' so while they'd reached a Company of Space Marines or Cadre of T'au by 4 months into the hobby' I was still on the Black Reach Orks with a Trukk and a scrapped Rhino. When I was able to buy more stuff it didn't really matter because while I would make a list usually on the day of a game, the competitive players were making 10 lists a month to test and rework to get the best possible chance of winning.
It took me a really long time and a lot of misery to work up the courage to ask my friends to let me have a chance at winning for once and I really hated that I had to do that at all. Its not GW's fault I was wary of overspending nor is it GW's fault some of these guys were super competitive. Certain aspects of the hobby and game certainly didn't improve the situation but it wasn't the fault of 40k alone.
I've had similar situations in BFG, AoS, Bolt Action, heck even just video games like Halo Wars or Supreme Commander. There's no legislating for people and 8th/9th so far haven't been a serious problem for me so far.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 08:05:04


Post by: aphyon


Moreover, what 10-13 year old (average start age for Warhammer in my experience) or indeed their parents are going to buy a 3d printer? My friend who has no commitments can afford to sit around and print parts or models all day, the rest of our group doesn't have that luxury.


1. not my experience at all, i am at the FLGS every saturday for 12+ hours since i took over running late night gaming in 2008 and the average age of people starting 40K for the first time is between 20-30
No young children get into the hobby unless they have a parent that gets them into it because they already play. the hobby is just to expensive if you are buying from GW, in fact they have priced many long time adult players out of the game.
2. 3d printing is incredibly affordable as well as convenient. you can let the printer run while you are off at work, asleep or doing anything else around the house then presto you have your minis right there to assemble and paint without having to go anywhere to get them. you are also not limited to GW designs there are loads of designers that make STL files for troops or vehicles and such they are completely unique.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 08:10:51


Post by: Karol


Well a game is just a set of rules. A set of rules are by their nature inanimate, so can't be fault of anything. But the rule designers and rule writers are very much at fault, because they are the ones that create the systems.

When the ways to play GW games and have fun come down to either owning multiple armies for multiple games or being able to buy and rebuy, new armies, in a span of under 4 months. Then there is, in my opinion a problem there. And it shows in the players retention GW games have. No table top game is as popular as w40k, at the same time most players don't last past one edition, often not even that.

The rest like upscaling the game, which I only know from stories, or price uping all the time are just secondary things.

I wonder if one day one of two things happen. The recasting becomes so wide spread , the way it is here, that GW will cave in or games like w40k run out of new players , and what is left is a cadre of 40+year old veterans. I seen this happen in sports. Right now there are practically no new judo or karate rankers under 14 year old. But there is a ton of trainers and ex contenders in their 40s or late 30s. And while it is not a problem when stuff is sesonally popular, it becomes a real problem when something becomes unpopular for multiplpe years. Which I think happened to w40k.



40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 08:13:27


Post by: kirotheavenger


I don't think 3D printing is that much of a threat right now.
It's definitely hurting them, but 3d printing is still fairly involved with having to clean and wash the parts and stuff, many describe it as a hobby in it's own right.

I also think GW has done an excellent job of cultivating a very insular culture for Warhammer. Warhammer is the hobby and anything outside of that is verbotten!
It seems they're only doubling down on that.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 08:15:16


Post by: Karol


 aphyon wrote:


1. not my experience at all, i am at the FLGS every saturday for 12+ hours since i took over running late night gaming in 2008 and the average age of people starting 40K for the first time is between 20-30
No young children get into the hobby unless they have a parent that gets them into it because they already play. the hobby is just to expensive if you are buying from GW, in fact they have priced many long time adult players out of the game.
2. 3d printing is incredibly affordable as well as convenient. you can let the printer run while you are off at work, asleep or doing anything else around the house then presto you have your minis right there to assemble and paint without having to go anywhere to get them. you are also not limited to GW designs there are loads of designers that make STL files for troops or vehicles and such they are completely unique.


I started at 13, alongside almost 20 other people, at the very start of 8th ed. Aside for me and 2 other people no one from the group that started plays anymore. 9th through a mix of covid and rules shifts, made it so that the store, while it was open, consisted mostly of guys in their late 20s and mid 30s. In fact there are probably more 50+ year olds at the store then teens. The only lower demographic is women, and even that not by much. Most people in their early teens when they hear that an army costs upwards of 700$ , requires hours of painting, and the rules balances is sometimes wonky, will just buy something safer. Like a good phone or a playstation, or an Xbox if they live in a really large city.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 08:35:05


Post by: mrFickle


The game is totally over complicated and what I would like to know from the 40K veterans is: is there any evidence that the changing of the rules and game mechanics has brought more players to the game.

Because I expect that gamer numbers go up through marketing etc

The game is soooooo different to when I played it in 2nd Ed, which felt more like it it was designed for fun. Now it feels like it’s designed for a tournament community.

The use of CP and strategems in game to get re rolls and buff feels like it’s moved half way towards being a card game instead of a strategic table top war game.



40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 08:35:32


Post by: Sim-Life


 Gert wrote:
Spoiler:
 Sim-Life wrote:

I used to make this argument during 8th but I've come to the realisation that if the game was good you should't NEED to ask people to tone down lists. In any of the other games I play I've never had to ask an opponent to play a certain way for us both to enjoy the game and I don't see why 40k should get a pass in that regard.

Its not the fault of the game if someone is a competitive person or that they have the money to get loads of stuff which results in them having a greater pool of units to choose from.


Well, yes, it is. If two people take a 500/1000/2000/whatever pts list a good game will present opportunities for both to win somehow regardless of the content of their armies. Most games are able to do this. Regardless of the "pool" of units most armies should be roughly the same level in terms of ability to win regardless of what units are taken, either by the objectives of the game or by restrictions to army choices or both.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 08:35:40


Post by: wuestenfux


Well, OP has a point: power creep, rule complexity, and price.
But that's the same with each new edition.

For me card-drawing in the 8th ed. was an issue introducing too much randomness into the game.
I'm happy its gone.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 08:41:12


Post by: Not Online!!!


 Gert wrote:

Its not the fault of the game if someone is a competitive person or that they have the money to get loads of stuff which results in them having a greater pool of units to choose from. I was very restricted in my Warhammer purchases compared to my friends when I was a young un' so while they'd reached a Company of Space Marines or Cadre of T'au by 4 months into the hobby' I was still on the Black Reach Orks with a Trukk and a scrapped Rhino. When I was able to buy more stuff it didn't really matter because while I would make a list usually on the day of a game, the competitive players were making 10 lists a month to test and rework to get the best possible chance of winning.
It took me a really long time and a lot of misery to work up the courage to ask my friends to let me have a chance at winning for once and I really hated that I had to do that at all. Its not GW's fault I was wary of overspending nor is it GW's fault some of these guys were super competitive. Certain aspects of the hobby and game certainly didn't improve the situation but it wasn't the fault of 40k alone.
I've had similar situations in BFG, AoS, Bolt Action, heck even just video games like Halo Wars or Supreme Commander. There's no legislating for people and 8th/9th so far haven't been a serious problem for me so far.


9th ? Not a problem?
Considering that 8th dexes baseline just suck in most cases in 9th? Even amongst a closeknitt group which has a common view upon the balance, right now some people more or less don't want to play right now against 9th dexes or even with their 9th dexes, understandably so.

Nevermind that GW WILLINGLY has adopted a DLC style monetisation policy and monetises balance patches too boot.

I am sorry, players might be part of the problem, but lets not pretend that the lionsshare of responsibiltiy doesn't lie with GW.





40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 08:41:17


Post by: Dudeface


mrFickle wrote:
The game is totally over complicated and what I would like to know from the 40K veterans is: is there any evidence that the changing of the rules and game mechanics has brought more players to the game.

Because I expect that gamer numbers go up through marketing etc

The game is soooooo different to when I played it in 2nd Ed, which felt more like it it was designed for fun. Now it feels like it’s designed for a tournament community.

The use of CP and strategems in game to get re rolls and buff feels like it’s moved half way towards being a card game instead of a strategic table top war game.



The demographic has changed. The rise of the US ITC basically led to the game being where we are.

The American scene has a large vocal community of play to win type tournament players. If it's not capable of being a sport it's not worth sort of mindset.

Given how much the online presence on YouTube and podcasts grew and became ITC centric through this time span, it resulted in it becoming the most commonly talked about and portrayed way to play the game and conversely what the vocal player base wanted.

Roll on 9th ed and GW partner and hire with people from the US tourney scene to steer the game that way.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 08:48:22


Post by: mrFickle


Dudeface wrote:
mrFickle wrote:
The game is totally over complicated and what I would like to know from the 40K veterans is: is there any evidence that the changing of the rules and game mechanics has brought more players to the game.

Because I expect that gamer numbers go up through marketing etc

The game is soooooo different to when I played it in 2nd Ed, which felt more like it it was designed for fun. Now it feels like it’s designed for a tournament community.

The use of CP and strategems in game to get re rolls and buff feels like it’s moved half way towards being a card game instead of a strategic table top war game.



The demographic has changed. The rise of the US ITC basically led to the game being where we are.

The American scene has a large vocal community of play to win type tournament players. If it's not capable of being a sport it's not worth sort of mindset.

Given how much the online presence on YouTube and podcasts grew and became ITC centric through this time span, it resulted in it becoming the most commonly talked about and portrayed way to play the game and conversely what the vocal player base wanted.

Roll on 9th ed and GW partner and hire with people from the US tourney scene to steer the game that way.


What does ITC stand for please?


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 08:51:13


Post by: Sunno




1. not my experience at all, i am at the FLGS every saturday for 12+ hours since i took over running late night gaming in 2008 and the average age of people starting 40K for the first time is between 20-30
No young children get into the hobby unless they have a parent that gets them into it because they already play. the hobby is just to expensive if you are buying from GW, in fact they have priced many long time adult players out of the game.


I agree with this but to say that this is the case for MOST wargames. 40k, WM/H, Malifaux, MCP, Infinity, Moonstone etc. Pretty much all players are adults with jobs and some disposable income and time.

Ask a young person what they would rather spend money on. The current Warhammer Total war season pass for something like £30-50 where they can play all the factions and leaders in glorious HD. Or spend hundreds of £ on models that you have at assemble and paint yourself (which will look naff initially), learn how to play, lug those models to a certain location to play, loose a lot of games in public etc. Its a gross generalisation but most young people will choose the former.

Wargaming is not something open to kids anymore unless they they have a rare mindset and a family with a lot of disposable income. If GW and other companies wanted to get kids into the game then key models and small units wouldn't £60 each.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 08:53:52


Post by: Togusa


Salt donkey wrote:
Yes I do mean what the title says and no it’s not hyperbole. I truly believe 40k atm is worse than it’s been since 7th. Here’s why it beats the runners up of bad times; 2.0 marine winter and Wild West of 8th.

1) OP armies and powercreep: GW clearly still knows how to balance as the sisters codex came out in a good spot. However, all the other recent codex releases have been just flat OP. Orks as a whole are mostly fine, but their warboss on sharksquig, new pysker battlewagon, squig riders, and buggies all are broken units that will make the faction too good. Ad mech and drukhari have both been as bad as marines were at their peak (or at least as bad as marines where sans the 2 week period iron hands where extremely OP). This is indisputable as Dark Eldar still hold a 60+ winrate despite receiving all the nerfs pretty much everyone was asking for in my “Drukhari are OP thread”. Ad-mech had their chicken walkers buffed despite them being one of their best units pre-codex. Oh and GW somehow forgot that letting units stack a bunch of buffs at once isn’t a good idea. Right.

We haven’t seen this level of powercreep since 7th Ed. Ask necron players if their army is still good.

2) Rules complexity Is frankly way too high. In addition to releasing campaign books before all army books are out, GW seems to love creating rules for niche situations or solving issues in poor ways. Core is a perfect example of this. People weren’t castling vehicles for the heck of it, they were doing it because it was
the only way to make them efficient enough with -1 to hit heavy weapons. Now vehicles suck in large part because GW felt they needed to “balance” something that hadn’t even proven itself to be broken. Oh but they can shoot into CC! You just need to have a spreadsheet to figure out all the exceptions for what you can and can’t shoot at/with a vehicle in CC. Because GW needed to “balance” the “unfairness” that are vehicles. There are lot of these dumb restrictions like this. From limiting “commander” HQs to 1 per detachment rather than just using the blanket rule of 3 (here’s an idea GW, why just make sure commander units aren’t broken to begin with?) to making An “Always Sunny” level convoluted keyword system, it’s clear GW loves injecting complex restrictions into 9th.

Add in stuff like formatio… I mean “armies of renown”, tons of stratagems, relics, Warlord traits, and complex unit profiles, and all of sudden the game is just as messy as it was in 7th. Oh and FAQs, while nice, seem to have to fix more and more and therefore are too much now as well. I doubt even die-hard ad mech players can explain all the rules they have access to.

3) Price.
GW just loves beating inflation. The price bump this game has gotten was too extreme. This will even out over time, but it was much easier for me to justify a purchase in 8th than in 9th, which combined with the above problems, has decreased what I’ve bought considerably.

So Conclusion/TLDR 40k right now is an terrible spot due to the following. The balance is at its worst despite its complexity and restrictions being at there highest. Despite all this, I’m expected to pay an extreme premium to play right now. That leaves models as the only thing keeping the game afloat, and those have been good for around 7 years now.


Played against the beast snaggs today with my Chaos Marines. Game was over turn one, absolutely terminated all of his units off the board. It was laughable how weak the new orks are. They appear to have only a couple of decent stratagems, and associated plays. The Warboss on Squigg went charing into Abby and then he cried as I cut him to pieces.

I think your conclusion is based more on opinion then fact. A lot of my area stores cannot keep up with product demand. There have been 43 people added to our group pages in the last 30 days, and nearly 90% of them have bought their armies or are in the process of doing so. A lot of them are gaming and a huge group of about 20 just went to the Lone Star Open this weekend. Seems to me from where I'm sitting that the game is doing just fine. Now, I will say I sort of agree with you on some parts. My game today aside, I'm not super keen on playing it much. Chaos is a mess right now requiring like 4 books minimum to play, and the new rules in Belakor don't even work RAW because the keywords are all jacked off. AoS is a lot more fun, though the jury is still out on 3E for now.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 09:08:21


Post by: Jidmah


 Bosskelot wrote:
Yes, Drukhari are strong and some of the Ork points costs look insane, but those are easy fixes.


Most whining about orks stems from people with zero experience with orks that fail to understand how BS5+ affects your shooting, that ork melee units are not M14"/FLY/advance+charge models or that buggies are severely limited by board space and the big nerf that forces them to stay in coherency. I've seen this idiot write a huge whine post about how OP a list with 18 squig riders, 9 squig buggies and 9 scrap jets is - guess what, he won't even be able fit half those model in his deployment zone, and even if he can, they will be stuck to each other and get nowhere until the game is over.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 09:16:21


Post by: Not Online!!!


 Jidmah wrote:
 Bosskelot wrote:
Yes, Drukhari are strong and some of the Ork points costs look insane, but those are easy fixes.


Most whining about orks stems from people with zero experience with orks that fail to understand how BS5+ affects your shooting, that ork melee units are not M14"/FLY/advance+charge models or that buggies are severely limited by board space and the big nerf that forces them to stay in coherency. I've seen this idiot write a huge whine post about how OP a list with 18 squig riders, 9 squig buggies and 9 scrap jets is - guess what, he won't even be able fit half those model in his deployment zone, and even if he can, they will be stuck to each other and get nowhere until the game is over.


That sounds like a geometry riddle... more than playing the army...

what was that game again where you need to get that red car out of a parking lot?


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 09:21:36


Post by: Slipspace


 Gert wrote:

Its not the fault of the game if someone is a competitive person or that they have the money to get loads of stuff which results in them having a greater pool of units to choose from.


I disagree (at least partially). If you're just starting out then some things will be unbalanced through no fault of the game thanks to lack of flexibility from newer players' collections. However, both the degree of imbalance and the point where that imbalance stops mattering due to buying power are problems created by the overall lack of balance in the game. They are also problems that are exacerbated by the lack of depth in the game because skill expression only gets you so far in the face of a bunch of broken stuff. In a well balanced game it should be possible to build an army that's reasonably close to what the background says it should be and do well with it against most other opponents and builds, especially if you want to put the practice in to hone your skills with that force. The massive imbalance in power level between 40k's armies makes that very difficult, if not impossible, if you happen to choose the wrong army to start with.

I also have a problem with the idea you should just talk to your opponent to get the game you want. That might work for experienced players with fairly large collections but it's a terrible solution for newer players starting out together. More than once I've seen new players start together, pick the army they think is cool, then get disheartened because it turns out the army their friend chose is so much more powerful than theirs. 8.5 SM were the perfect example of this, but other examples exist in every edition of 40k thanks to its lack of balance. For newer players they understandably lack the skills and knowledge to identify what the issues are so even in situations where the disparity isn't as obvious they often can't solve the problem by talking to one another.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 09:37:18


Post by: Skinnereal


mrFickle wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
The demographic has changed. The rise of the US ITC basically led to the game being where we are.

The American scene has a large vocal community of play to win type tournament players. If it's not capable of being a sport it's not worth sort of mindset.

Given how much the online presence on YouTube and podcasts grew and became ITC centric through this time span, it resulted in it becoming the most commonly talked about and portrayed way to play the game and conversely what the vocal player base wanted.

Roll on 9th ed and GW partner and hire with people from the US tourney scene to steer the game that way.
What does ITC stand for please?
I think, from memory, ITC is set of community-agreed rules applied to 40k for tournament play.
I'll look it up and update later.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 10:02:38


Post by: Gert


@aphyon
Spoiler:
 aphyon wrote:

1. not my experience at all, i am at the FLGS every saturday for 12+ hours since i took over running late night gaming in 2008 and the average age of people starting 40K for the first time is between 20-30
No young children get into the hobby unless they have a parent that gets them into it because they already play. the hobby is just to expensive if you are buying from GW, in fact they have priced many long time adult players out of the game.
2. 3d printing is incredibly affordable as well as convenient. you can let the printer run while you are off at work, asleep or doing anything else around the house then presto you have your minis right there to assemble and paint without having to go anywhere to get them. you are also not limited to GW designs there are loads of designers that make STL files for troops or vehicles and such they are completely unique.

Point 1 isn't something I can argue with because each individual has their own experience but I will say that at least in the UK where GW stores are fairly prevalent and GW encourages things like co-operation with Scouts and has the Schools League, there's a lot of kids in the hobby.
As for point 2, how is leaving a printing machine unsupervised for hours at a time a safe thing to do? It isn't just about time with regards to printing either, I also have to learn how to do it and find good quality files. On top of this, I will not be allowed to use any of my printed materials at my local GW store where I do most of my gaming, or at WHW which I frequent as much as possible. And again to parrot off of my experiences, what parent is buying their child/teenager a 3d printer over a Warhammer Starter Box and some paints?


@Karol
Spoiler:
Karol wrote:

I started at 13, alongside almost 20 other people, at the very start of 8th ed. Aside for me and 2 other people no one from the group that started plays anymore. 9th through a mix of covid and rules shifts, made it so that the store, while it was open, consisted mostly of guys in their late 20s and mid 30s. In fact there are probably more 50+ year olds at the store then teens. The only lower demographic is women, and even that not by much. Most people in their early teens when they hear that an army costs upwards of 700$ , requires hours of painting, and the rules balances is sometimes wonky, will just buy something safer. Like a good phone or a playstation, or an Xbox if they live in a really large city.

TBF I think using this last year might be a bit of a bad example. It's hardly been "normal" as it was.


@SimLife
Spoiler:
 Sim-Life wrote:

Well, yes, it is. If two people take a 500/1000/2000/whatever pts list a good game will present opportunities for both to win somehow regardless of the content of their armies. Most games are able to do this. Regardless of the "pool" of units most armies should be roughly the same level in terms of ability to win regardless of what units are taken, either by the objectives of the game or by restrictions to army choices or both.

Ideally in a perfect world yes, games should come down to superior generalship and luck. But if my 500pts is the same 500pts every single game and my opponent is bringing a different list every single time due to the large collection they amassed in a short time due to the Bank of Parents, that's not a game balance issue. They can adapt and change tactics by swapping units in and out whereas I'm stuck with the same 20 Boyz, a Warboss, 5 Nobz, and Trukk.


@NotOnline!
Spoiler:
Not Online!!! wrote:
9th ? Not a problem?
Considering that 8th dexes baseline just suck in most cases in 9th? Even amongst a closeknitt group which has a common view upon the balance, right now some people more or less don't want to play right now against 9th dexes or even with their 9th dexes, understandably so.

Nevermind that GW WILLINGLY has adopted a DLC style monetisation policy and monetises balance patches too boot.

I am sorry, players might be part of the problem, but lets not pretend that the lionsshare of responsibiltiy doesn't lie with GW.

I'm playing 9th Ed with both 9th and 8th Ed Codexes against other 9th and 8th Ed Codexes. I've lost with an 8th VS 8th, 9th VS 9th, and 9th VS 8th. And again, personal experience that 9th and 8th were both hugely better for me personally than 5th through to 7th.


@Slipspace
Spoiler:
Slipspace wrote:

I disagree (at least partially). If you're just starting out then some things will be unbalanced through no fault of the game thanks to lack of flexibility from newer players' collections. However, both the degree of imbalance and the point where that imbalance stops mattering due to buying power are problems created by the overall lack of balance in the game. They are also problems that are exacerbated by the lack of depth in the game because skill expression only gets you so far in the face of a bunch of broken stuff. In a well balanced game it should be possible to build an army that's reasonably close to what the background says it should be and do well with it against most other opponents and builds, especially if you want to put the practice in to hone your skills with that force. The massive imbalance in power level between 40k's armies makes that very difficult, if not impossible, if you happen to choose the wrong army to start with.

I also have a problem with the idea you should just talk to your opponent to get the game you want. That might work for experienced players with fairly large collections but it's a terrible solution for newer players starting out together. More than once I've seen new players start together, pick the army they think is cool, then get disheartened because it turns out the army their friend chose is so much more powerful than theirs. 8.5 SM were the perfect example of this, but other examples exist in every edition of 40k thanks to its lack of balance. For newer players they understandably lack the skills and knowledge to identify what the issues are so even in situations where the disparity isn't as obvious they often can't solve the problem by talking to one another.

In an ideal world yes, a better balance between background and game would be much better but personally I haven't seen the massive power imbalance in 40k recently. I don't think tournament results are particularly useful because it's a competitive system by design and players aren't trying to win just for bragging rights. Yes, some armies have units/combos that are better than others but that's where IMO the conversation needs to happen. If your friend/opponent is stomping you flat for 10 games in a row despite trying your hardest to win, then a discussion should be had to see if that friend/opponent would be willing to make changes to accommodate a fairer game. There are loads of contributing factors to balance and it isn't all down to game design but that's the easiest thing to pick out.
If people are getting discouraged because their friends happen to have a broken OP army then I would say that's the perfect place for discussion to happen. Swapping armies, changing game sizes, making custom missions, or playing ones that aren't straight out of the rulebook, there are so many ways that balance can be addressed.



40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 10:04:45


Post by: Tyel


 Jidmah wrote:
Most whining about orks stems from people with zero experience with orks that fail to understand how BS5+ affects your shooting, that ork melee units are not M14"/FLY/advance+charge models or that buggies are severely limited by board space and the big nerf that forces them to stay in coherency. I've seen this idiot write a huge whine post about how OP a list with 18 squig riders, 9 squig buggies and 9 scrap jets is - guess what, he won't even be able fit half those model in his deployment zone, and even if he can, they will be stuck to each other and get nowhere until the game is over.


I preferred your original point.
People are saying 40k is in its worst spot since 7th edition.... based on a codex they've almost certainly not played against, with people supposedly running models that have not even been released.

Its not based on facts - its just a whinge.

I think DE and Ad Mech - and possibly the new Orks although we should at least see - could do with some toning down. But the idea 40k is ruined because of it is just nonsense. In part, frankly, because these factions remain relatively rare across casual tables. Its not like "Oh I play an imperial faction? I'm throwing in a Castellan". Or "oh, Marines are currently best faction, guess who has a Marine army? Oh look, 50% of all players". as we saw in 2018 and 2019.

I also see for example at the Lone Star Open the "ask their players if their faction is still good" Necrons managed to come 4th. Now I can equally see smaller tournaments are almost wall to wall Ad Mech, implying the problem, but you still see Sisters, and Marines, and DG making appearances in those top ranks.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 10:20:42


Post by: Karol


TBF I think using this last year might be a bit of a bad example. It's hardly been "normal" as it was.

Most of the players that started in 8th left in 8th though. So it is not just a last year thing. 9th was a time of no new younger players in my area though, and that is all. The new player, at least around here, is most often someone in his mid to late 20s, who once played W40k already.


I think DE and Ad Mech - and possibly the new Orks although we should at least see - could do with some toning down. But the idea 40k is ruined because of it is just nonsense.

No, not really. In 8th, which IMO was worse then 9th, if you had to play an optimised list, you often ended with something that looked wierd. 6 flyers. 3-4 codex soups etc. Not everyone can afford that day one and not everyone may want to play it day one. The problem with DE or Mechanicus is that they were broken with stuff everyone owned . It is the same problem 2.0 marines brought to 8th, when suddenly aside for all the crazy FW stuff, the deadly model to have become the run of the mill intercessor. And this creates big problems at the not event tier of play. Because yeah the local eldar may play with flyer 2-4 of them, not the whole 6 real optimised lists do. Maybe the local marine player did use centurions in his RG list. all 3 he owned, not the 15 he should be running for perfect optimisation. But having basic troops do stuff crazy stuff? that always ended bad at the store level of playing. Because the chance of a DE player having wrecks, witchs and transports for them is huge. And this creates an arms race situation, and often to beat the casual version of top end armies, people require tournament style list. And then those people with their tournament lists play other people, and those people have to adjust to both the DE/Mechanicus players, and everyone else who is now running tournament lists. It doesn't ruin the game, but it makes it really hard to play for people who want to have fun playing non optimised lists, or who can't afford to buy a close to tournament level lists.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 10:27:02


Post by: aphyon


Point 1 isn't something I can argue with because each individual has their own experience but I will say that at least in the UK where GW stores are fairly prevalent and GW encourages things like co-operation with Scouts and has the Schools League, there's a lot of kids in the hobby.
As for point 2, how is leaving a printing machine unsupervised for hours at a time a safe thing to do? It isn't just about time with regards to printing either, I also have to learn how to do it and find good quality files. On top of this, I will not be allowed to use any of my printed materials at my local GW store where I do most of my gaming, or at WHW which I frequent as much as possible. And again to parrot off of my experiences, what parent is buying their child/teenager a 3d printer over a Warhammer Starter Box and some paints?


Point 1
There is nothing like that here, it is a private personal hobby unless a discord group or family start something there is no official organized set up.

Point 2
Yes the machine is perfectly safe to let run, One of the guys at the store bought a printer like 2 weeks ago, he didn't stop running it for a week and a half until he ran out of plastic to print with. long prints when he was asleep or at work and short prints when he was home.

Removed - Rule #1 please

They have no space, including table space, no bathrooms, short hours they only allow you to play the main GW games (when they are not pushing you to buy something)

None of the veteran players go there because we like to play lots of non-GW games, we don't care if they are GW models if you are playing a GW game, we can stay as late as we want, bring in food, have a large play space with many tables, plenty of parking and bathrooms.

I understand since you are on their home turf that they have a much larger footprint but the US gaming experience is more focused on the FLGS.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 10:48:53


Post by: Galas


My only problem with 9th edition is that the basic missions are boring. I liked more the final 8th iteration of Maelstrom of War with the card minigame, etc... it had the best of all worlds.

But 9th is ITC redux and I never liked ITC.

For the rest, I believe codex are just rule wise a better quality product than most that has come before, with a real effort to make most untis ussable, add variety in gameplay and options even bypassing the (probably marketing driven) decission of no models no rules with stuff like kustom mek job, subkulturs, cryptek arkana, drukhari elite versions of their troops, etc.... They are much inferior in the fluff and "builder" part of the hobby, tought, so TBH at this point it would be better for them to be made free and just rules updates.

That doesnt mean old editions didn't had "gameplay feelings" that I liked more. And being honest, most old editions would be much better if GW back then was at least how they are know in relation to the speed of giving every faction rules, release of FAQ's, balance points ,etc... We have to remember how in old editions factions spend 6-8 years without codex, you had only faqs in the last couple of months before an edition ran over, you had the same broken combos, point costs, etc... for 5+ years on average, and the meta in general was much worse and solved and just straight up boring.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 10:50:29


Post by: Slipspace


 Gert wrote:

@Slipspace
In an ideal world yes, a better balance between background and game would be much better but personally I haven't seen the massive power imbalance in 40k recently. I don't think tournament results are particularly useful because it's a competitive system by design and players aren't trying to win just for bragging rights. Yes, some armies have units/combos that are better than others but that's where IMO the conversation needs to happen. If your friend/opponent is stomping you flat for 10 games in a row despite trying your hardest to win, then a discussion should be had to see if that friend/opponent would be willing to make changes to accommodate a fairer game. There are loads of contributing factors to balance and it isn't all down to game design but that's the easiest thing to pick out.
If people are getting discouraged because their friends happen to have a broken OP army then I would say that's the perfect place for discussion to happen. Swapping armies, changing game sizes, making custom missions, or playing ones that aren't straight out of the rulebook, there are so many ways that balance can be addressed.


I agree tournament results only really matter if people are playing tournament armies. What really maters is the general imbalance between Codices and typical armies taken from them. That's why I brought up 8.5 SM before. that book was so ridiculous it was almost impossible not to create some overpowered army by accident in comparison to any non-SM army that wasn't specifically trying to be hyper competitive.

The rest of your points kind of miss the point of what I was saying. Yes, it's possible to have a conversation about how to balance things better. New players are especially poorly suited to having those conversations because they don't know how to balance things due to lack of experience. So while I can help out a new player and put together a 1000 point list to fight their random collection of Tau stuff two less experienced players finding their way into the hobby together just can't do that as effectively. How is making a custom mission going to help 2 new players who frankly have no real grasp of the game at this point? They're just as likely to create further imbalance as they are to fix their problems.

It also seems to be a uniquely GW thing to put the emphasis on the players to fix the problems of the system's terrible balance (other than systems that are explicitly designed with that sort of co-operation in mind, of course, like many historicals). The balance problems are exacerbated by the lack of skill expression in 40k. All games involving list building will have disparity between good and bad lists, which is fine, but 40k's disparity is too big and the financial investment required to build an army makes that disparity even worse. It's really disheartening to have to tell someone the really cool unit they bought for their army is terrible and will actively handicap them even in fairly casual games because GW's balance sucks so hard. As a practical example, a few years ago I helped a new player get into X-Wing in much the same way I would help a new player get into 40k. I played some games against them, trying to balance my list against theirs and not taking the absolute best tournament-winning list. I gave them advice about how to improve. The vast majority of this advice was not about their list, but about improving their skills in-game. There were some tweaks to ships and upgrades but fairly minor ones and all of them were quick and cheap to implement. Compare that to a new 40k player that chooses the "wrong" army and has to endure an underpowered, uninteresting mess for months or years. It's really disheartening having to say to someone they've basically wasted their money on some stuff (at least until the random GW balance swings back in that unit's favour) and they now need to spend even more time and money getting a totally different unit if they want to have even a halfway decent army.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 10:52:25


Post by: a_typical_hero


 aphyon wrote:
Removed - Rule #1 please

Every week there is another broad, unverifiable, absurd and insulting statement to a big part of the player base, but if you argue against that kind of gak, you are a die hard white knight lol.

Been 3 times to a GW store in my life, so I got no horse in this race... but you need a reality check. An unpleasant amount of people on this board do.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 11:18:50


Post by: Polonius


Argive wrote:Bloat of rules upon more layered rules does not make the game more complex. Just makes it more adminy...


Sim-Life wrote:
 Polonius wrote:

the core rules are far simpler than at any point, but the layers of rules that can affect a unit are deeper than I've ever seen.


40k is the Skyrim of tabletop games. Wide as an ocean but as deep as puddle. Calling 40k deep is insulting to games with actual depth. Any "depth" 40k has is just the illusion of choice.


Can we may decided upon a term then for how to refer to the situation of a simple squad having it's own datasheet with rules, two auras, a psychic power, a prayer, a strategem, and a relic? Since apparently complex and deeply layered are too positive for some?




40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 11:19:28


Post by: Slipspace


 aphyon wrote:


They have no space, including table space, no bathrooms, short hours they only allow you to play the main GW games (when they are not pushing you to buy something)

None of the veteran players go there because we like to play lots of non-GW games, we don't care if they are GW models if you are playing a GW game, we can stay as late as we want, bring in food, have a large play space with many tables, plenty of parking and bathrooms.

I understand since you are on their home turf that they have a much larger footprint but the US gaming experience is more focused on the FLGS.


In general you're correct - GW stores are about the worst location to play games I can think of. However, in this specific instance the poster mentions going to WHW, which is one of the best gaming spaces in the world, so GW manages to simultaneously occupy both ends of the spectrum.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Polonius wrote:
Argive wrote:Bloat of rules upon more layered rules does not make the game more complex. Just makes it more adminy...


Sim-Life wrote:
 Polonius wrote:

the core rules are far simpler than at any point, but the layers of rules that can affect a unit are deeper than I've ever seen.


40k is the Skyrim of tabletop games. Wide as an ocean but as deep as puddle. Calling 40k deep is insulting to games with actual depth. Any "depth" 40k has is just the illusion of choice.


Can we may decided upon a term then for how to refer to the situation of a simple squad having it's own datasheet with rules, two auras, a psychic power, a prayer, a strategem, and a relic? Since apparently complex and deeply layered are too positive for some?




"Complicated" is probably the word you're looking for. Not that I think your point was particularly hard to grasp from what you said.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 11:28:37


Post by: Gert


Slipspace wrote:

In general you're correct - GW stores are about the worst location to play games I can think of. However, in this specific instance the poster mentions going to WHW, which is one of the best gaming spaces in the world, so GW manages to simultaneously occupy both ends of the spectrum.

Oh for sure the old location was a serious mess at times. It was on the Royal Mile which is never quiet and during the Fringe Festival or festive period, it was almost impossible to get to. All the tourists would pick up your stuff with their grubby hands and ask annoying questions in the middle of a shooting phase. However, they hosted loads of lock in's for Apocalypse games, friendly tournaments, and even had a LotR club going for about 6 months.
The new location has the shop and gaming areas completely separate. It's much more spacious and I honestly can't wait to get in.
Also, yes WHW is amazing. It's one of those things where once you've been, the local just doesn't compare anymore. I've been through the museum, like 3 times, and every time I still want to go and do it again. The FW store is a serious concern and my wallet weeps every time I even look. Even saw Chris Peach once.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 11:44:21


Post by: Cyel


 Polonius wrote:
Argive wrote:Bloat of rules upon more layered rules does not make the game more complex. Just makes it more adminy...


Sim-Life wrote:
 Polonius wrote:

the core rules are far simpler than at any point, but the layers of rules that can affect a unit are deeper than I've ever seen.


40k is the Skyrim of tabletop games. Wide as an ocean but as deep as puddle. Calling 40k deep is insulting to games with actual depth. Any "depth" 40k has is just the illusion of choice.


Can we may decided upon a term then for how to refer to the situation of a simple squad having it's own datasheet with rules, two auras, a psychic power, a prayer, a strategem, and a relic? Since apparently complex and deeply layered are too positive for some?




Idk, convoluted? Overcomplicated? Bloated? A deep but elegant game can produce complex game states out of simple rules. Wh40k produces simple game states out of long and bloated rules.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 11:50:47


Post by: Not Online!!!


 Gert wrote:

@NotOnline!
Spoiler:
Not Online!!! wrote:
9th ? Not a problem?
Considering that 8th dexes baseline just suck in most cases in 9th? Even amongst a closeknitt group which has a common view upon the balance, right now some people more or less don't want to play right now against 9th dexes or even with their 9th dexes, understandably so.

Nevermind that GW WILLINGLY has adopted a DLC style monetisation policy and monetises balance patches too boot.

I am sorry, players might be part of the problem, but lets not pretend that the lionsshare of responsibiltiy doesn't lie with GW.

I'm playing 9th Ed with both 9th and 8th Ed Codexes against other 9th and 8th Ed Codexes. I've lost with an 8th VS 8th, 9th VS 9th, and 9th VS 8th. And again, personal experience that 9th and 8th were both hugely better for me personally than 5th through to 7th.



Your mileage may vary, but indeed since 7th GW has adopted the gaming industries bs tactics in regards to monetisation. And that annoys me the most

Also unlike 8th and 9th , my favourite army was actually not taken behind the shed between 5-7th so that may colour my biases.

Nvm that we lost in that transition multiple armies. Nvm that we got now preorder DLC, NVM that GW once again has stopped propperly FAQ'ing for what one can only assume is frustration marketing tactics, in regards to 2 wound chaos marines f.e.

No, ontop of that GW has once again given us 8.5 marines, monetised balance patches, ynnari, and of course the new Ad mechs and Drukhari dex, sure FAQ fixes some issues and others are fixed by pts changes by the field manuals, that doesn't change the fact though that not even EA gets away with monetising "pts changes" aka balance updates.

I still think its perfectly fine to be unhappy about GW and 8th -9th. especially when one realisis that the piecemeal monetisation has been there since 7th and the only thing that has really improved is a social media PR team.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 11:55:31


Post by: a_typical_hero


Not Online!!! wrote:
No, ontop of that GW has once again given us 8.5 marines, monetised balance patches, ynnari, and of course the new Ad mechs and Drukhari dex, sure FAQ fixes some issues and others are fixed by pts changes by the field manuals, that doesn't change the fact though that not even EA gets away with monetising "pts changes" aka balance updates.

They do get away with a database update and repackaging every year, though


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 11:58:15


Post by: Not Online!!!


a_typical_hero wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
No, ontop of that GW has once again given us 8.5 marines, monetised balance patches, ynnari, and of course the new Ad mechs and Drukhari dex, sure FAQ fixes some issues and others are fixed by pts changes by the field manuals, that doesn't change the fact though that not even EA gets away with monetising "pts changes" aka balance updates.

They do get away with a database update and repackaging every year, though


Yeah.. and making money with illegal gambling ontop of children...

One could consider the often large Copy paste parts of dexes and art similar.

TBF though GW did enter the "lootbox" market aswell with these character packs.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 12:00:57


Post by: Karol


Slipspace 799934 11182665 wrote:

It also seems to be a uniquely GW thing to put the emphasis on the players to fix the problems of the system's terrible balance (other than systems that are explicitly designed with that sort of co-operation in mind, of course, like many historicals). The balance problems are exacerbated by the lack of skill expression in 40k. All games involving list building will have disparity between good and bad lists, which is fine, but 40k's disparity is too big and the financial investment required to build an army makes that disparity even worse. It's really disheartening to have to tell someone the really cool unit they bought for their army is terrible and will actively handicap them even in fairly casual games because GW's balance sucks so hard. As a practical example, a few years ago I helped a new player get into X-Wing in much the same way I would help a new player get into 40k. I played some games against them, trying to balance my list against theirs and not taking the absolute best tournament-winning list. I gave them advice about how to improve. The vast majority of this advice was not about their list, but about improving their skills in-game. There were some tweaks to ships and upgrades but fairly minor ones and all of them were quick and cheap to implement. Compare that to a new 40k player that chooses the "wrong" army and has to endure an underpowered, uninteresting mess for months or years. It's really disheartening having to say to someone they've basically wasted their money on some stuff (at least until the random GW balance swings back in that unit's favour) and they now need to spend even more time and money getting a totally different unit if they want to have even a halfway decent army.


The problem is often what makes the army broken. If to make a broken list you have to recast 7-9 FW dreadnoughts, or play poxwalkers and horrors at the same time in the same soup list. Then the chance of it being a problem at the bottom level of playing, specially in games of new player 01 vs new player 02 is much lower. The problems start when stuff like, take 90 intercessors to get an unbeatable army at store level, happens. Because such a list, even if in a GT enviroment a weak one, will create huge problems in a store enviroment. Have enough of such armies in hands of players, and sooner or later the whole thing ends in an arms race. Because those with weaker or weak armies are going to have to upgrade to their factions versions of tournament lists. Plus at some point the limitations become laughable to enforce. If a DE players had to not take a succubus, witchs, raiders with lances, wrecks with liquifires, Draz etc, then suddenly it turns in to the DE player has to play with only bad units and have a bad army, because otherwise I won't have fun. And good luck convincing the DE player to buy an army to fit this way. That is why stuff like marines 2.0, DE or ad mecha was so much worse at the casual level of playing, then at the tournament level or high end player level.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not Online!!! 799934 11182734 wrote:

Yeah.. and making money with illegal gambling ontop of children...

One could consider the often large Copy paste parts of dexes and art similar.

TBF though GW did enter the "lootbox" market aswell with these character packs.


Don't give them ideas. Just think about it. Random boosters to support an event book in it you have. New sculpts for basic troopers for factions involved, lets say 2-3 models, then 2-3 officers models, and then some rare 1-2 super powerful rules wise HQs, support options or new squad weapon guys. Rules printed only in the boosters, added 2 sesons after the event ends to the w40k app.

Want that twice shoting demonic plasma gun csm player? Try to get the character and the rules for him, and the models in one of our 3 different booster boxs.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 12:41:01


Post by: Ordana


DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
Rules seem simple compared to previous editions. One armor value instead of multiple for different sides, no blast templates needed to use certain weapons…
instead you have 2 dozen stratagems per army.

I'll take the 'complexity' of 3 armor values over the gotcha's from statagems.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 12:44:13


Post by: Salt donkey


Lot of good points on here. Frankly I don’t know if orkz will be OP, just guessing they might based mainly on how powerful t-Rex and buggies are.

I agree with others that certain armies default builds are just superior to others. You want to to run a fluffy drukhari bulld with tons of raiders, wyches, incubi, drazar, wracks, ect? Great! You’ll be making a fluffy and powerful list.

You want to do build a fluffy necron list using tons of warriors mixed with catocomb units to make a nice combine forced army? Well the warriors will help you at least and the scarabs are ok, but most of the rest of the catacomb stuff is trash that will actively hurt your list. Marines in transports? Just make sure to ditch the transports and you’ll be fine. Chaos marines running demon engines? If by demon engines you mean noise marines and emperor children terminators then by all means, all in on demon engines.

And really, it’s the rules bloat that gets me the most. GW adding interesting complexity is one thing, but a lot of rules exist solely to curb other rules problems (AP creep is a big problem, better add a bunch of -1 damage units and only wound on 4+ effects) or are so finicky that they are basically pointless outside of that one niche scenario your opponent might notice. (Random modifiers to leadership/ combat attrition, random abilities that give neutered versions of good rules like heroic intervention only against units that charged, random mortal wound effects that can be good if they aren’t capped, but usually is limited to 1 (or 3 at most) if you make die role, effects that matter after a fight has already happened, set to defend, leadership in general, keyword bingo effects, ect etc). The base rules of 8th where a little too simplistic, but at least they tried to make things easy to understand. I just wish GW would get a better at making a few rules that they are certain will make a big impact, vs just generating a bunch of random nonsense in the hopes one of the rules will mean something. As a deathguard player, I’d take a single “contagion of Nurgle” effect over a 100 “remorseless” level rules easily.

Anyway this is kind of rant, but the point is the game reminds of what 7th was. The only difference is OP armies match the fluff better, but as mentioned earlier, this isn’t even a good thing .


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 12:46:31


Post by: Dudeface


mrFickle wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
mrFickle wrote:
The game is totally over complicated and what I would like to know from the 40K veterans is: is there any evidence that the changing of the rules and game mechanics has brought more players to the game.

Because I expect that gamer numbers go up through marketing etc

The game is soooooo different to when I played it in 2nd Ed, which felt more like it it was designed for fun. Now it feels like it’s designed for a tournament community.

The use of CP and strategems in game to get re rolls and buff feels like it’s moved half way towards being a card game instead of a strategic table top war game.



The demographic has changed. The rise of the US ITC basically led to the game being where we are.

The American scene has a large vocal community of play to win type tournament players. If it's not capable of being a sport it's not worth sort of mindset.

Given how much the online presence on YouTube and podcasts grew and became ITC centric through this time span, it resulted in it becoming the most commonly talked about and portrayed way to play the game and conversely what the vocal player base wanted.

Roll on 9th ed and GW partner and hire with people from the US tourney scene to steer the game that way.


What does ITC stand for please?


International Tournament Circuit, which was created, designed and maintained by FLG (Fronline Gaming).

I appreciate you might be wondering where the International comes into it, however because their use spread to be International that doesn't preclude that they originated in the US and spread as per my post.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 13:06:52


Post by: vipoid


There was another thread comparing 7th and 9th so I'm just going to copy what I wrote previously:

7th:

Let's not beat about the bush, 7th was an absolute mess. The core rules started badly and then the codices, supplements, mid-edition codices (where the design philosophy changed completely), lack of FAQs etc. made things spiral completely out of control.

In terms of the core rules, there was a lot of bloat - not least because it refused to reverse the disastrous changes wrought by 6th edition (with the inclusion of super-heavies and fliers being the most egregious). Hence, we had to have whole sections for new types of units, basically detailing how they follow no rules whatsoever and can do whatever the hell they want, whenever they want. Awesome. This totally didn't read like someone trying to insert their badly-written, Mary-the-Mechwarrior Sue fanfiction into a game that was already ill-suited for it.

But for as bad as those rules were, they were by no means the only issue with 7th. In fact, quite a few of 7th issues seemed to stem from someone on the design team (you know who you are) having the bright idea to just lift swathes of 8th edition Warhammer Fantasy Battle rules and ram them into 40k. This was most evident with 7th's magic (sorry "Psyker") system, which had all the same nonsense as 8th edition - right down to the 'random to determine the random thus seeing whether you'll random or randomly get randomed in the face' and the utterly broken spells. However, even leaving aside the fact that 8th edition WHFB's magic system was a colossal pile of pigswill, at least that game system was built with magic as a core element. Hence, every race either had wizards of its own (generally costing roughly the same) or else had significant countering/dispelling ability (like with Dwarves). In contrast, 40k races have vastly different accessibilities when it comes to psykers and counters to psykers - ranging from entire armies of psykers to armies with no psykers whatsoever (and also with very few tools to counter such). So while WHFB's terrible magic system was at least somewhat balanced by roughly equal access, 40k's attempt at the same didn't even have that modicum of balance. Instead, if a Tau or Necron or DE player (or even a player who'd foolishly brought only one or two psykers) was up against GKs or Daemons, he might as well go and make himself a sandwich while they conduct their psychic phase.

And because I'm not done ragging on the psychic phase, now would probably be a good time to bring up 7th's commitment to 'balance by random'. As in, it doesn't matter if one psychic power is useless and another is game-winning because you have to roll for them! Presuming your brain is located in your skull and not your rectum, you can probably see the flaw in that particular line of reasoning. Alas, GW did not. And so not only was this policy applied to psychic powers, it was also applied to other areas of army construction such as Warlord Traits (because who'd want to give a character a thematic trait, right?). Naturally, it meant that there was a ton of pre-game nonsense that had to be rolled for at the start of every game.

Then you've got the endless litany of time-wasting mechanics - the terrible wound-allocation rules, the entire Challenge system, the pointless special rules (Soulfire anyone?).

And you've got the final problem which was that the layout of the core rulebook was absolutely atrocious. Nothing seemed to flow logically, so that you'd have the rules for vehicles in one section, except for a certain type of vehicle which is found in an entirely different section because reasons. Or the USRs that you look up only to find that all they do is give a unit two different USRs. It meant that any sort of rules debate immediately brought the game to a grinding halt as players struggled to even find the right section in the convoluted mess of a rulebook.


So what about 9th?

Well, it certainly made some improvements. The rulebook is better laid out . . . though this seems to have been achieved primarily by just throwing most of the content in the bin. Indeed, I think the biggest flaw with 8th/9th is that it threw far too much good stuff out, along with the bad.

USRs are gone and instead each model has a different name (and sometimes even description) for what amounts to the same ability. This makes the game very awkward in a number of ways.
- It makes it much harder to remember what a given rule does (there's a reason people still talk in the language of USRs).
- It makes it much harder to spot when a similar-looking rule differs from a common one. In the past, a model with a different Deep Strike ability would have either an ability with a different name (so you'd know immediately that it was different) or else Deep Strike but with a second rule to amend it. Now, though, every model has a different name for deep strike, so it's easily to skim read such rules with the assumption that it's just another deep strike rule, and inadvertently miss a small but important difference.
- It makes it much more awkward to write rules that refer to what were once common rules. e.g. in the past you could have referred specifically to FNP or Deep Strike, now you have to refer to 'rules that let a model ignore wounds' or 'rules that let a model deploy on the table after the first battle turn' or some other very awkward language.
- It means that there's often no common language. In the past, you'd know that FNP meant FNP. Now, though, you often end up looking at two rules with very similar wording and trying to work out whether the difference is intentional or just the result of them being written by different writers without any sort of agreed language/format for rule text.

In short, it creates far more problems than it could ever hope to solve, whereas most of the original problems with USRs could have been solved by just writing out the text on each model's datasheet.

The psychic phase has been simplified but perhaps a little too much (probably because it just pinched yet another magic system from Fantasy - this time the heavily trimmed-down AoS one). All the different weapon profiles are gone, now it's mortal wounds and more mortal wounds. It's better than the ridiculousness of spells like Invisibility but it doesn't leave much room for creativity. Also, the system is quite weird in that you just throw two dice and hope to achieve the target number. No resources are expended beyond an arbitrary cast limit per turn and there are almost no choices to be made. At least with the 7th edition system you could add more dice, increasing the chance of succeeding but also increasing the chance of Perils. Now spells have different cast values but you can't do anything about it because your dice are always fixed anyway. All things considered, I find myself wondering why we need to have a psychic phase at all - it seems you could have just as easily gone back to the pre-7th model, where units just make a Ld test to cast a psychic power.

Initiative is gone completely and instead we have a mess of 'always strikes first' and 'always strikes last'. Resolving combats without those rules is even worse, as you have ludicrous situations where selecting a unit to fight causes an entirely different unit, in an entirely different combat, to fight more slowly. But apparently this is an improvement for some reason.

Morale is basically gone, with Pinning and Falling Back being removed entirely. Now when a unit fails a morale test some of its members just vanish into the aether.

Transports can't deploy passengers when they move, thus negating the point of most transports even existing (plus fire-points are inexplicably gone - so either your transport is open-topped or else its just a mobile brick).

Stratagems, Dear, God, stratagems. If there is anything current 40k did not need, it was Stratagems. I note that this idea came, as so many seem to, from importing yet more stuff from Age of Sigmar. Except that Age of Sigmar took the wise decision to make Command Points usable by HQs for specific command abilities. 40k on the other hand decided that HQs would be entirely divorced from CPs (why would HQs have any strategic or command role, after all?) and so instead tied CPs to a card game that feels entirely disconnected from anything in the rulebook or on the table. It also gives us even more ludicrous scenarios - like one unit being unable to throw their grenades because a different unit threw theirs.

What's worse is that Stratagems also seem to have eaten a not insignificant chunk of what used to be actual options and wargear. So now many units have few options and instead rely on specific stratagems for that purpose, thus restricting the ability to personalise individual units.

Speaking of which, 8th removed character's being able to join squads and instead made characters very hard to target. The main issue was that the arbitrary cut-off limit meant monster-characters could hide behind basic infantry, since it was based on wounds and the wounds characteristic had almost no relation to the actual size of a given model. 9th ""fixed"" this not by using a different statistic (such as strength or toughness or one of the billion keywords that has been added to the game) but instead by requiring characters to be stupidly close to a unit in order to gain any protection. This means stuff like Death Jesters and other characters that are meant to be lone-snipers or lone-hunters now can't act as they're supposed to. But hey, at least Guilliman can still hide behind guardsmen, and that's all that matters.

Cover is still negligible, especially as there's no longer any penalty for firing at an obscured target. Combined with fewer penalties for movement and smaller boards, this typically means units can just shoot at whatever the hell they want with zero regard for intervening models and even intervening terrain.


I should say that it's by no means all bad. 9th at least doesn't have random psychic power selection or warlord trait selection. The wound allocation system is vastly better (though I do think it would be wise to future-proof it, so that the game doesn't break if a unit has more than one wounded model at a given time). And all in all it's at least a more functional game than 7th was (as it doesn't require significant house-ruling before you can even play).

However, I fear that in an effort to get away from 7th, 8th/9th ended up throwing out a lot of stuff that was actually functional (or which required only some minor tweaks to make it functional). Not that it's necessarily a worse game in and of itself, just I think it represents a bad direction for 40k to be heading in - not least because the game seems to be increasingly getting away from what's happening on the table being the key factor in who wins. Especially with the advent of stratagems, it seems we're really not far off from just turning 40k into a full-on card game and abandoning the board and minis entirely.


...

Just to add to my prior thoughts, I think 9th is still better balanced than 9th was, even after DE/Admech. However, I'm finding it a lot harder to stay invested in it. There's just something about the current rules and mechanics that dampen my spark of enthusiasm far more than even 7th's godawful rules ever managed.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 13:14:48


Post by: Ordana


Dudeface wrote:
mrFickle wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
mrFickle wrote:
The game is totally over complicated and what I would like to know from the 40K veterans is: is there any evidence that the changing of the rules and game mechanics has brought more players to the game.

Because I expect that gamer numbers go up through marketing etc

The game is soooooo different to when I played it in 2nd Ed, which felt more like it it was designed for fun. Now it feels like it’s designed for a tournament community.

The use of CP and strategems in game to get re rolls and buff feels like it’s moved half way towards being a card game instead of a strategic table top war game.



The demographic has changed. The rise of the US ITC basically led to the game being where we are.

The American scene has a large vocal community of play to win type tournament players. If it's not capable of being a sport it's not worth sort of mindset.

Given how much the online presence on YouTube and podcasts grew and became ITC centric through this time span, it resulted in it becoming the most commonly talked about and portrayed way to play the game and conversely what the vocal player base wanted.

Roll on 9th ed and GW partner and hire with people from the US tourney scene to steer the game that way.


What does ITC stand for please?


International Tournament Circuit, which was created, designed and maintained by FLG (Fronline Gaming).

I appreciate you might be wondering where the International comes into it, however because their use spread to be International that doesn't preclude that they originated in the US and spread as per my post.
Yeah the ITC is a ruleset made by Americans who then put 'International' in it, as they are want to do.
It was not 'internationally' developed.

In Europe ITC was generally considered bad because of its overly focus on killing and if there was a communal set of house rules that was followed at all it was the ETC rules (European team championship), which was actually an internationally collaborated set of rules (tho mostly European)


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 13:35:36


Post by: Slipspace


Pretty sure the "I" in ITC stands for Independent.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 13:47:40


Post by: G00fySmiley


how Orks are thrown in with this mess is beyond me. Lets complain about models that are unreleased and how powerful units that came out this weekend are. At least wait till model release and some time for people to actually play the new ork codex before complaining about its power level. there were some buffs but also a lot of checks to counter (and often make those "buffed" units overall worse) that in my opinion brought the power level of the army down outside of a few theoretical builds with untested units.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 13:49:01


Post by: oni


But... this is supposed to be the best edition evAr because GW consulted design with high profile tournament players and is also having high profile tournament players play test it.

None of this makes any sense... GW's having tournament players heavily influence design and play test the game for them. What are you all even talking about?

GW even hired Mike Brandt (the NOVA Open guy) to design the absolutely amazing 9th edition missions. And all this talk about complexity...
People must be confused. The missions are so one-dimensional, how could anyone call them complex?

I just don't understand what the problem is. This edition is clearly Tournament-Hammer and you cannot go wrong with that because what's best for tournament players is obviously what's best for the game and everyone who plays it.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 13:57:26


Post by: Sim-Life


 oni wrote:
But... this is supposed to be the best edition evAr because GW consulted design with high profile tournament players and is also having high profile tournament players play test it.

None of this makes any sense... GW's having tournament players heavily influence design and play test the game for them. What are you all even talking about?

GW even hired Mike Brandt (the NOVA Open guy) to design the absolutely amazing 9th edition missions. And all this talk about complexity...
People must be confused. The missions are so one-dimensional, how could anyone call them complex?

I just don't understand what the problem is. This edition is clearly Tournament-Hammer and you cannot go wrong with that because what's best for tournament players is obviously what's best for the game and everyone who plays it.


Almost like the squeaky wheel gets the grease or something.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 14:00:01


Post by: a_typical_hero


 oni wrote:
I just don't understand what the problem is. This edition is clearly Tournament-Hammer and you cannot go wrong with that because what's best for tournament players is obviously what's best for the game and everyone who plays it.

Get a core rulebook and look up Narrative and Open Play. If you confine yourself to Matched Play / the tournament pack, don't blame others for your perceived lack of variety.

Extra hint of the day: You can even mix those rules or adjust them how you see fit. Nobody is forcing you to play the same "hold, hold more, hold many" for the entire edition.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 14:01:45


Post by: Jidmah


a_typical_hero wrote:
 oni wrote:
I just don't understand what the problem is. This edition is clearly Tournament-Hammer and you cannot go wrong with that because what's best for tournament players is obviously what's best for the game and everyone who plays it.

Get a core rulebook and look up Narrative and Open Play. If you confine yourself to Matched Play / the tournament pack, don't blame others for your perceived lack of variety.

I don't think that will make them happy - after all, there is no confirmation bias game mode.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 14:02:33


Post by: Polonius


I"m having more fun playing Crusade in 9th than I've had in a really long time with 40k.

My only real beef with current 40k is that the complexity of all the layered rules leads to a lot of forgotten rules.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 14:05:51


Post by: Jidmah


 Polonius wrote:
I"m having more fun playing Crusade in 9th than I've had in a really long time with 40k.

My only real beef with current 40k is that the complexity of all the layered rules leads to a lot of forgotten rules.


I can relate to that - almost makes me glad that Inexorable Advance usually does nothing and that the Waaagh! is over after two turns

I totally wouldn't be able to keep track of all the admech stuff after a few hours of gaming.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 14:06:53


Post by: Gert


 Polonius wrote:
I"m having more fun playing Crusade in 9th than I've had in a really long time with 40k.

My only real beef with current 40k is that the complexity of all the layered rules leads to a lot of forgotten rules.

Pffft, I was forgetting Astra Militarum Orders back in 5th and I sure as heck ain't going to start remembering now.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 14:13:40


Post by: Dudeface


Slipspace wrote:
Pretty sure the "I" in ITC stands for Independent.


From the FLG site:

"The ITC (International Tournament Circuit) is a coalition of tabletop gaming tournaments that have joined together to increase their mutual resources, exposure to the community and the prestige of their events."


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 14:18:43


Post by: Insectum7


 Ordana wrote:
DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
Rules seem simple compared to previous editions. One armor value instead of multiple for different sides, no blast templates needed to use certain weapons…
instead you have 2 dozen stratagems per army.

I'll take the 'complexity' of 3 armor values over the gotcha's from statagems.
+1

Yes please!


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 14:27:36


Post by: oni


a_typical_hero wrote:
 oni wrote:
I just don't understand what the problem is. This edition is clearly Tournament-Hammer and you cannot go wrong with that because what's best for tournament players is obviously what's best for the game and everyone who plays it.

Get a core rulebook and look up Narrative and Open Play. If you confine yourself to Matched Play / the tournament pack, don't blame others for your perceived lack of variety.


It's easy to say such things.

Matched Play is the default mode of play. That's a universal truth.

And in my area, sadly, you play Matched Play (GT pack - or previously NOVA) or you don't play at all. It's all tourny-hammer all the time here.

I'm spoiled for choice of stores too. I've ventured to many surrounding stores within a 50 mile radius, I've even travelled as far as 150 miles, trying to find like minded players and keep coming up empty handed. No one actually plays anything other than Matched Play here.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 14:42:50


Post by: Slipspace


Dudeface wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
Pretty sure the "I" in ITC stands for Independent.


From the FLG site:

"The ITC (International Tournament Circuit) is a coalition of tabletop gaming tournaments that have joined together to increase their mutual resources, exposure to the community and the prestige of their events."


I stand corrected. Pretty sure it used to stand for Independent. CAlling it International isn't technically wrong since it is an international format, I guess.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 14:50:41


Post by: Daedalus81


Dudeface wrote:

The demographic has changed. The rise of the US ITC basically led to the game being where we are.

The American scene has a large vocal community of play to win type tournament players. If it's not capable of being a sport it's not worth sort of mindset.

Given how much the online presence on YouTube and podcasts grew and became ITC centric through this time span, it resulted in it becoming the most commonly talked about and portrayed way to play the game and conversely what the vocal player base wanted.

Roll on 9th ed and GW partner and hire with people from the US tourney scene to steer the game that way.


Crusade and rules that fit the fluff of a faction are stand-outs for 9th. Those have nothing to do with ITC.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 14:53:42


Post by: vipoid


 Insectum7 wrote:
 Ordana wrote:
DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
Rules seem simple compared to previous editions. One armor value instead of multiple for different sides, no blast templates needed to use certain weapons…
instead you have 2 dozen stratagems per army.

I'll take the 'complexity' of 3 armor values over the gotcha's from statagems.
+1

Yes please!


Just want to add my support for this, too.


Actually, on that note, I find it absolutely hilarious that one of the arguments against USRs was that people didn't like having to look up rules and that the current system meant that every rule you needed for a unit was on that unit's dataslate (except for faction special rules, subfaction special rules, weapons, warlord traits, artefacts etc., which don't count, apparently). However, its apparently fine for units to have two dozen Stratagems that potentially affect them and which still have to be looked up, yet (unlike USRs) you don't even see the names of those Stratagems on the unit's dataslate.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 14:54:19


Post by: Sim-Life


 oni wrote:
a_typical_hero wrote:
 oni wrote:
I just don't understand what the problem is. This edition is clearly Tournament-Hammer and you cannot go wrong with that because what's best for tournament players is obviously what's best for the game and everyone who plays it.

Get a core rulebook and look up Narrative and Open Play. If you confine yourself to Matched Play / the tournament pack, don't blame others for your perceived lack of variety.


It's easy to say such things.

Matched Play is the default mode of play. That's a universal truth.

And in my area, sadly, you play Matched Play (GT pack - or previously NOVA) or you don't play at all. It's all tourny-hammer all the time here.

I'm spoiled for choice of stores too. I've ventured to many surrounding stores within a 50 mile radius, I've even travelled as far as 150 miles, trying to find like minded players and keep coming up empty handed. No one actually plays anything other than Matched Play here.


You'll find that a lot of people leaping to 40k's defence suggest just playing somewhere else or other people or just making your own group, like it's a simple thing to do. I don't know where these people live that they have multiple groups that play multiple different games regularly or old editions of 40k or WHFB and everyone has flexible attitudes and ways to play but I'd like to visit these places some day.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 14:57:50


Post by: The Red Hobbit


 vipoid wrote:

Actually, on that note, I find it absolutely hilarious that one of the arguments against USRs was that people didn't like having to look up rules and that the current system meant that every rule you needed for a unit was on that unit's dataslate (except for faction special rules, subfaction special rules, weapons, warlord traits, artefacts etc., which don't count, apparently). However, its apparently fine for units to have two dozen Stratagems that potentially affect them and which still have to be looked up, yet (unlike USRs) you don't even see the names of those Stratagems on the unit's dataslate.


Likewise. I never understood the argument against USRs and needing to look things up. The thing about Universals was that over time you would memorize them (if they came up enough, of course you still have to look up the rarely used one). Then we get dozens of stratagems instead, pretty funny to be honest.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 14:58:31


Post by: Daedalus81


Tyel wrote:
and DG making appearances in those top ranks.


DG had an exceptionally good showing this past weekend.






40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 15:00:16


Post by: Gert


Wait hold up, Drukhari and Admech are hitting under 70%? That's not as bad as people have made it out to be. I'm here thinking that those two factions are taking home 80-90% win rates.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 15:05:15


Post by: a_typical_hero


 Sim-Life wrote:
 oni wrote:
It's easy to say such things.

Matched Play is the default mode of play. That's a universal truth.

And in my area, sadly, you play Matched Play (GT pack - or previously NOVA) or you don't play at all. It's all tourny-hammer all the time here.

I'm spoiled for choice of stores too. I've ventured to many surrounding stores within a 50 mile radius, I've even travelled as far as 150 miles, trying to find like minded players and keep coming up empty handed. No one actually plays anything other than Matched Play here.


You'll find that a lot of people leaping to 40k's defence suggest just playing somewhere else or other people or just making your own group, like it's a simple thing to do. I don't know where these people live that they have multiple groups that play multiple different games regularly or old editions of 40k or WHFB and everyone has flexible attitudes and ways to play but I'd like to visit these places some day.

Nobody said it was easy. Just that if you want something that you do not have, you should try to get it instead of waiting for it to magically appear one day in your lap.
I'm honestly sorry for oni if there really is nobody who likes to try something other than standard tournament play. I really mean it.

That being said, it is more a local problem rather than one with the system. GW could promote Crusade more so people would perceive it as the default way of playing the game or at least it being as valid as tournament play, though.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 15:06:00


Post by: kirotheavenger


Matched play is more like balanced play.
My group sometimes plays Narrative, but when we do we still use points and other Matched restrictions. We used Matched rules in our brief Crusade campaign for example.

Another group regularly plays with the Open War deck in Matched play games, when that's nominally only for Casual games.

I really don't get the attitude that Matched == tournament play.

On the flip side, my experience is that the "default" play experience is absolutely competitive Matched play. In large, disjointed, groups this will be all that gets played as there just isn't the opportunity to get beyond that.

However in smaller groups you can get beyond that. Often, however, with a new member you'll default back to the competitive Matched playstyle, or risk bombarding them with a slew of house rules/agreements from the "old boys club".


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 15:06:17


Post by: Aenar


Anything over 60% is broken, 80-90% are basically impossible to reach


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 15:08:40


Post by: Not Online!!!


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Tyel wrote:
and DG making appearances in those top ranks.


DG had an exceptionally good showing this past weekend.






That data seems really iffy f.e. Aeldari seem not representative with only 3 players.
Then you have 40 / 37 for the typicall FOTM armies right now.
Also are mirror matches removed since they would normalise the armies torwards 50% again?


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 15:08:47


Post by: Daedalus81


 Gert wrote:
Wait hold up, Drukhari and Admech are hitting under 70%? That's not as bad as people have made it out to be. I'm here thinking that those two factions are taking home 80-90% win rates.


Occasionally they do. They're taking a lot of top tables, but they're also a large percent of the players so it stands they'll show up there more.

They're still tough bastards. I played AdMech this weekend with a terrible Magnus & pure TS list ( because I forgot a whole tray of minis ) and I still managed to pull in 60 points. Taking hits from enriched rounds wasn't as bad as trying to slog through 120+ infantry models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not Online!!! wrote:

That data seems really iffy f.e. Aeldari seem not representative with only 3 players.
Then you have 40 / 37 for the typicall FOTM armies right now.


Aeldari being the DE/Harlie/CW types like Nayden. They're rarely played in that grouping.



40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 15:43:36


Post by: Sasori


 Gert wrote:
Wait hold up, Drukhari and Admech are hitting under 70%? That's not as bad as people have made it out to be. I'm here thinking that those two factions are taking home 80-90% win rates.


Anything over 60% is absolutely broken, because this takes into account mirror matches as well. When you start to get anywhere near 70% it's really, really bad.



40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 15:46:12


Post by: Not Online!!!


 Daedalus81 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

That data seems really iffy f.e. Aeldari seem not representative with only 3 players.
Then you have 40 / 37 for the typicall FOTM armies right now.


Aeldari being the DE/Harlie/CW types like Nayden. They're rarely played in that grouping.



well..

Are Mirrors still in this statistic or not?


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 15:46:17


Post by: Tyran


1) 40k always has suffered from power creep: 5th suffered it, 6th suffered it, 7th suffered it, 8th suffered it, 9th suffers it. The only notable difference is that GW is willing to change point costs and even rules, while before 8th they never retouched rules once released. Also we have yet to get a design paradigm shift like the one we got mid 7th (or mid 5th), all 9th edition codexes play by the same design rules.

2) I agree on rules bloat, but if we learned something from the brief period of Indexhammer, it is that people love rules bloat.

3) True, but that is capitalism and the law of supply and demand. GW has high prices because the market pays those prices, that's irrespective of the edition.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 15:59:12


Post by: xttz


Not Online!!! wrote:
not even EA gets away with monetising "pts changes" aka balance updates.

I still think its perfectly fine to be unhappy about GW and 8th -9th. especially when one realisis that the piecemeal monetisation has been there since 7th and the only thing that has really improved is a social media PR team.


Asking as I haven't bought one yet; but when you use the code with a 9E codex does it show the original points values as printed, or the CA points values?


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 17:57:40


Post by: Blackie


 Sasori wrote:
 Gert wrote:
Wait hold up, Drukhari and Admech are hitting under 70%? That's not as bad as people have made it out to be. I'm here thinking that those two factions are taking home 80-90% win rates.


Anything over 60% is absolutely broken, because this takes into account mirror matches as well. When you start to get anywhere near 70% it's really, really bad.



Nah, and that's because tournament lists might be very different from lists most of the players will likely play and play against. In the box above I see Chaos SM with 58% while they're considered among the worst bottom tiers at the moment. And yet competitive gaming flipped that.

Drukhari got an insanely high WR in the last few months by relying on DT liquifiers spam and that combo with razorflails on a succubus, while in real life very few players were taking those things on the table. Everyone says that FAQs fixed drukhari but in fact most of the drukhari players have not been affected at all by such changes, at best they have been forced to shave 20-30 points thanks to the raider's price hike.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Tyran wrote:


2) I agree on rules bloat, but if we learned something from the brief period of Indexhammer, it is that people love rules bloat.



Naah, we learned from indexhammer that people love internal balance for their codexes, which most of the indexes didn't have at all.

If an ork boy costs 6ppm while deffkoptas are 83ppm, and basically anything but troops and some characters was utterly overpriced to the point that the only possible viable build is to spam boyz, characters and big gunz (rip) I'd take rules bloat anytime.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 18:30:47


Post by: Sim-Life


 Blackie wrote:

Naah, we learned from indexhammer that people love internal balance for their codexes, which most of the indexes didn't have at all.

If an ork boy costs 6ppm while deffkoptas are 83ppm, and basically anything but troops and some characters was utterly overpriced to the point that the only possible viable build is to spam boyz, characters and big gunz (rip) I'd take rules bloat anytime.


Why are you talking like you can't have internal balance without rules bloat?


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 18:40:06


Post by: Not Online!!!


 xttz wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
not even EA gets away with monetising "pts changes" aka balance updates.

I still think its perfectly fine to be unhappy about GW and 8th -9th. especially when one realisis that the piecemeal monetisation has been there since 7th and the only thing that has really improved is a social media PR team.


Asking as I haven't bought one yet; but when you use the code with a 9E codex does it show the original points values as printed, or the CA points values?


In the APP`?
can't say anything on that since i am not willing to get robbed by GW for the abismal app.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 18:48:56


Post by: catbarf


 Sim-Life wrote:
 Blackie wrote:

Naah, we learned from indexhammer that people love internal balance for their codexes, which most of the indexes didn't have at all.

If an ork boy costs 6ppm while deffkoptas are 83ppm, and basically anything but troops and some characters was utterly overpriced to the point that the only possible viable build is to spam boyz, characters and big gunz (rip) I'd take rules bloat anytime.


Why are you talking like you can't have internal balance without rules bloat?


Not to mention it's substantially easier to improve internal balance with fewer layers of rules to worry about. All it takes is one good stratagem or subfaction bonus or aura or whatever to elevate an otherwise-fair unit to overpowered.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 18:51:59


Post by: RaptorusRex


I said in my initial salvoes, and I'll say it again. Anyone who opens their complaint thread with the tournament win rates as if that reflects the average Matched Play game is full of gak. Never mind that this person isn't looking at things holistically, it's just a bad mindset.

I'm going to play at my FLGS tonight. I am probably going to lose, but I am going to have fun, because I have a sense of sportsmanship. I doubt many of the people who spend every waking hour complaining about meta stuff actually play the game.

"But stuff from the tournaments flows downstream?"

Even if I concede to this, which I don't, I still have a solution. It's called talking to your opponent, like an adult. Tell your opponent that you're not having fun with their meta list and want to play a casual, fun game.

It's tournament players who are "breaking" the game, by and large. Their faulty mindset has become infectious by way of memes (in the Richard Dawkins sense) and caused the brainrot present here. As it stands, we are here, talking about an unreleased codex, unreleased units, and unreleased models as if they're somehow invincible.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 19:46:04


Post by: Blackie


 Sim-Life wrote:
 Blackie wrote:

Naah, we learned from indexhammer that people love internal balance for their codexes, which most of the indexes didn't have at all.

If an ork boy costs 6ppm while deffkoptas are 83ppm, and basically anything but troops and some characters was utterly overpriced to the point that the only possible viable build is to spam boyz, characters and big gunz (rip) I'd take rules bloat anytime.


Why are you talking like you can't have internal balance without rules bloat?


Well you can definitely have it, but it wasn't what we actually had with 8th indexes. The opposite of that actually.

My point is that people didn't love the codexes because they loved rules bloat, but because 8th edition of 40k with indexes was among the worst experiences of 40k ever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 catbarf wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
 Blackie wrote:

Naah, we learned from indexhammer that people love internal balance for their codexes, which most of the indexes didn't have at all.

If an ork boy costs 6ppm while deffkoptas are 83ppm, and basically anything but troops and some characters was utterly overpriced to the point that the only possible viable build is to spam boyz, characters and big gunz (rip) I'd take rules bloat anytime.


Why are you talking like you can't have internal balance without rules bloat?


Not to mention it's substantially easier to improve internal balance with fewer layers of rules to worry about. All it takes is one good stratagem or subfaction bonus or aura or whatever to elevate an otherwise-fair unit to overpowered.


Absolutely. But again it's not what GW actually did in 8th. Codexes, even with their rules bloats, were much more internally (and externally) balanced than the indexes.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 20:05:04


Post by: The Red Hobbit


Agreed, the 8e Codexes were reasonably balanced internally and externally, with exceptions as there always are. Then 8.5 rolls around and the external balance falls down the stairs then out the window.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 20:30:46


Post by: Arachnofiend


 catbarf wrote:
Not to mention it's substantially easier to improve internal balance with fewer layers of rules to worry about. All it takes is one good stratagem or subfaction bonus or aura or whatever to elevate an otherwise-fair unit to overpowered.

Sure, but the other side of that coin is that the presence of extra rules and limited stratagems help differentiate units that would otherwise be practically identical. "This unit does more damage for the points, but this other unit can pop a CP to shoot while performing an action" muddies the waters a bit and makes it so that there's more to talk about than raw mathematical efficiency.

 The Red Hobbit wrote:
Agreed, the 8e Codexes were reasonably balanced internally and externally, with exceptions as there always are. Then 8.5 rolls around and the external balance falls down the stairs then out the window.

Extremely funny to me as someone who played Necrons and Thousand Sons, the first of which was inexcusably bad and only got placements with heavy skew meta-counter lists that caught people off guard, and the latter which had such hilariously extreme internal balance that every other chaos faction stole our HQ's while the rest of the codex was left in the bin.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 20:43:11


Post by: Blastaar


 RaptorusRex wrote:
I said in my initial salvoes, and I'll say it again. Anyone who opens their complaint thread with the tournament win rates as if that reflects the average Matched Play game is full of gak. Never mind that this person isn't looking at things holistically, it's just a bad mindset.

I'm going to play at my FLGS tonight. I am probably going to lose, but I am going to have fun, because I have a sense of sportsmanship. I doubt many of the people who spend every waking hour complaining about meta stuff actually play the game.

"But stuff from the tournaments flows downstream?"

Even if I concede to this, which I don't, I still have a solution. It's called talking to your opponent, like an adult. Tell your opponent that you're not having fun with their meta list and want to play a casual, fun game.

It's tournament players who are "breaking" the game, by and large. Their faulty mindset has become infectious by way of memes (in the Richard Dawkins sense) and caused the brainrot present here. As it stands, we are here, talking about an unreleased codex, unreleased units, and unreleased models as if they're somehow invincible.


Yet you feel compelled to complain and complain in this thread because you personally dislike "competitive" play. Your condescension is uncalled for.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
OP: You describe 40k in a nutshell. I only played 40k when I hung out in *gasp* a GW store! The horror! I played in one in-store tournament, lost terribly with my greenwing rofl, and in my limited experience I can say that most folks were playing competitive lists. A few, other than myself weren't. I understand not wanting to speak to an opponent every. Single. Time. You want to play a game. Players should not need to take things into their own hands to make a product function.

Try pre-sixth editions, Grim Dark Future, etc. Or play something entirely different with your existing minis! Stargrave and Zone Raiders (both skirmish games) come to mind.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 20:51:54


Post by: The Red Hobbit


Never heard of Zone Raiders before, how would you describe it?


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 21:08:15


Post by: RaptorusRex


Blastaar wrote:
 RaptorusRex wrote:
I said in my initial salvoes, and I'll say it again. Anyone who opens their complaint thread with the tournament win rates as if that reflects the average Matched Play game is full of gak. Never mind that this person isn't looking at things holistically, it's just a bad mindset.

I'm going to play at my FLGS tonight. I am probably going to lose, but I am going to have fun, because I have a sense of sportsmanship. I doubt many of the people who spend every waking hour complaining about meta stuff actually play the game.

"But stuff from the tournaments flows downstream?"

Even if I concede to this, which I don't, I still have a solution. It's called talking to your opponent, like an adult. Tell your opponent that you're not having fun with their meta list and want to play a casual, fun game.

It's tournament players who are "breaking" the game, by and large. Their faulty mindset has become infectious by way of memes (in the Richard Dawkins sense) and caused the brainrot present here. As it stands, we are here, talking about an unreleased codex, unreleased units, and unreleased models as if they're somehow invincible.


Yet you feel compelled to complain and complain in this thread because you personally dislike "competitive" play. Your condescension is uncalled for.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
OP: You describe 40k in a nutshell. I only played 40k when I hung out in *gasp* a GW store! The horror! I played in one in-store tournament, lost terribly with my greenwing rofl, and in my limited experience I can say that most folks were playing competitive lists. A few, other than myself weren't. I understand not wanting to speak to an opponent every. Single. Time. You want to play a game. Players should not need to take things into their own hands to make a product function.

Try pre-sixth editions, Grim Dark Future, etc. Or play something entirely different with your existing minis! Stargrave and Zone Raiders (both skirmish games) come to mind.


God forbid you have to be social in a social game.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 21:12:11


Post by: Table


 RaptorusRex wrote:
I said in my initial salvoes, and I'll say it again. Anyone who opens their complaint thread with the tournament win rates as if that reflects the average Matched Play game is full of gak. Never mind that this person isn't looking at things holistically, it's just a bad mindset.

I'm going to play at my FLGS tonight. I am probably going to lose, but I am going to have fun, because I have a sense of sportsmanship. I doubt many of the people who spend every waking hour complaining about meta stuff actually play the game.

"But stuff from the tournaments flows downstream?"

Even if I concede to this, which I don't, I still have a solution. It's called talking to your opponent, like an adult. Tell your opponent that you're not having fun with their meta list and want to play a casual, fun game.

It's tournament players who are "breaking" the game, by and large. Their faulty mindset has become infectious by way of memes (in the Richard Dawkins sense) and caused the brainrot present here. As it stands, we are here, talking about an unreleased codex, unreleased units, and unreleased models as if they're somehow invincible.


That is a really nice coat of white paint on your armor. I also agree. All people who play the game in ways in which I do not, have brain rot! Games workshop produces perfect rules and one should always try to fix those perfect rules and balance by talking to their opponent and having them pull a list out of thin air because I cannot build something that will win a game. Man, talk about run on sentences.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 21:39:53


Post by: Argive


I think ad mech are a good case example of going to far with special rules.

When I watch a bat rep with admech in, I start to doze off while the ad mech player explains which uniits get what buffs from what source and what character is buffing which units and which army rules apply to which unit for that turn...

I tghought necrons were hard to keep track of but this just turns that dial up to 20.

Im not even sure how much of a difference half of those rules make for the most part...

Stark contrast to Drukhari. Which are powerful and really don't have all that many special rules. Just good efficient units and synergies and the iffiness comes at the army build stage


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 21:56:22


Post by: Darsath


Talking with your opponent should always be an important aspect of them game. Not balance wise, but more in communicating intent, asking questions, or just keeping a good atmosphere. However, if you have to ask the players to create a balanced game, all you're really doing is moving the problem.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 22:00:13


Post by: Argive


Sometimes you just need to accept you will get a thrashing...


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 22:21:02


Post by: Blastaar


 RaptorusRex wrote:
Blastaar wrote:
 RaptorusRex wrote:
I said in my initial salvoes, and I'll say it again. Anyone who opens their complaint thread with the tournament win rates as if that reflects the average Matched Play game is full of gak. Never mind that this person isn't looking at things holistically, it's just a bad mindset.

I'm going to play at my FLGS tonight. I am probably going to lose, but I am going to have fun, because I have a sense of sportsmanship. I doubt many of the people who spend every waking hour complaining about meta stuff actually play the game.

"But stuff from the tournaments flows downstream?"

Even if I concede to this, which I don't, I still have a solution. It's called talking to your opponent, like an adult. Tell your opponent that you're not having fun with their meta list and want to play a casual, fun game.

It's tournament players who are "breaking" the game, by and large. Their faulty mindset has become infectious by way of memes (in the Richard Dawkins sense) and caused the brainrot present here. As it stands, we are here, talking about an unreleased codex, unreleased units, and unreleased models as if they're somehow invincible.


Yet you feel compelled to complain and complain in this thread because you personally dislike "competitive" play. Your condescension is uncalled for.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
OP: You describe 40k in a nutshell. I only played 40k when I hung out in *gasp* a GW store! The horror! I played in one in-store tournament, lost terribly with my greenwing rofl, and in my limited experience I can say that most folks were playing competitive lists. A few, other than myself weren't. I understand not wanting to speak to an opponent every. Single. Time. You want to play a game. Players should not need to take things into their own hands to make a product function.

Try pre-sixth editions, Grim Dark Future, etc. Or play something entirely different with your existing minis! Stargrave and Zone Raiders (both skirmish games) come to mind.


God forbid you have to be social in a social game.


You aren't helping yourself. If the discussion bothers you so much, stop reading it.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 22:21:53


Post by: TinyLegions


 Sim-Life wrote:


You'll find that a lot of people leaping to 40k's defence suggest just playing somewhere else or other people or just making your own group, like it's a simple thing to do. I don't know where these people live that they have multiple groups that play multiple different games regularly or old editions of 40k or WHFB and everyone has flexible attitudes and ways to play but I'd like to visit these places some day.


As someone who exclusively plays the 6th edition of WFB, I can confirm how hard it is to get like minded individuals on board to get a game in of something that is "not current." Point me in that direction as well when you find it.

To the OP: Honestly I can't make the comparison between the 7th and the 9th. I left early in the 7th for non-gaming reasons and I have yet to get a game in of the 9th. I will reserve my response to this question(as I am sure that it will come up) when I actually have a few games in.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 23:02:46


Post by: Vankraken


Beginning of 7th is vastly superior to what 8th and 9th has become because at least the core rules of 7th allowed for depth of gameplay regardless of how complex or basic the army codex is. Games felt like tactical execution mattered more where as with 8th/9th (but especially with 8th) it feels like it sometimes boils down to smashing/shooting your blob of units into their blob of units until one side falls over.

6th and 7th definitely had more than it's fair share of bloat and imbalances (mid to late 7th being the runaway train of power creep and the pants on head FAQ) but it could be mitigated by the players playing relatively balanced armies against each other to avoid 1 sides stomps. Personally I never had fun playing 8th because everything I found fun about the table top game as absent from the rules so it just became a chore to play (and test games with 9th rules felt the same).

Of course GW being GW can't help but bloat the hell out of the game.... again but I said from the start that the bare bones nature of 8th and the lack of added depth in 9th would result in fairly rapid rules bloat in the codexes/supplements due to the lack of design space to work with within the core rules. It becomes a lot of buff stacking and modifiers which doesn't work that well in a D6 based game where an augment of +/- 1 is a huge deal compared to a D10 or D20 style game.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/26 23:05:01


Post by: vipoid


 Argive wrote:
Stark contrast to Drukhari. Which are powerful and really don't have all that many special rules. Just good efficient units and synergies and the iffiness comes at the army build stage


Eh, I'd say their army-building rules are a godawful mess but maybe that's just me.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/05/26 08:15:43


Post by: BlackoCatto


How it feels to play Guard or Tau right now.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/27 02:21:16


Post by: Gregor Samsa


While I didn't play 7th edition, or 6th for that matter, because they were such obviously terrible games I will say that we are now one year into 9th edition and GW dragging their feet with the codex release schedule has completely warped this edition.

The terrain keywords make 2000 points at least tolerable if everyone works together to make an interesting board.

Fact of the matter is:

The activation system is terrible and needs a total rework.

Drawing line of sight using any part of model is also terrible

Weapon strength and damage creep just further exposes an already failed activation model.



40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/27 12:23:20


Post by: tneva82


 Gert wrote:
Wait hold up, Drukhari and Admech are hitting under 70%? That's not as bad as people have made it out to be. I'm here thinking that those two factions are taking home 80-90% win rates.


So let's have 5 games.

DE vs DE
DE vs SM
DE vs AM
DE vs IG
DE vs Ork.

All games are DE win.

DE gets 5 wins, 1 loss. 83% win rate.

See the problem?

If that 70% doesn't filter out mirror matches then 70% is sick rate.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/27 12:23:48


Post by: Gert


Is it dragging their feet when they can't ship anything due to Covid, Brexit and global supply issues? I know this is an international forum but I cannot stress enough how much Brexit has caused problems for exporting products, loads of smaller companies have just flat out had to stop shipping to Europe because its too expensive. GW isn't exempt from this and specifically is covering the costs of exports to Europe to avoid issues. Still doesn't solved Covid or the problems to the global supply chain caused by Covid. Companies can't release products they don't have.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
tneva82 wrote:

So let's have 5 games.

DE vs DE
DE vs SM
DE vs AM
DE vs IG
DE vs Ork.

All games are DE win.

DE gets 5 wins, 1 loss. 83% win rate.

See the problem?

If that 70% doesn't filter out mirror matches then 70% is sick rate.

You've just made up a statistic though. That doesn't prove anything at all. I could easily just say that Drukhari lose all those games because we're just making up numbers.
And just as a side note, people really need to stop looking at tournament data IMO. Do you compare your casual running times with athletes who train for it? Do you compare your CoD K/D ratio with Esports players? I certainly don't.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/27 12:43:19


Post by: the_scotsman


tneva82 wrote:
 Gert wrote:
Wait hold up, Drukhari and Admech are hitting under 70%? That's not as bad as people have made it out to be. I'm here thinking that those two factions are taking home 80-90% win rates.


So let's have 5 games.

DE vs DE
DE vs SM
DE vs AM
DE vs IG
DE vs Ork.

All games are DE win.

DE gets 5 wins, 1 loss. 83% win rate.

See the problem?

If that 70% doesn't filter out mirror matches then 70% is sick rate.


True, but it's worth pointing out that at their craziest headiest height drukhari were at something like a ~10% playrate. Compare to post-2.0 space marines who were rocking a 45-50% playrate. The number of drukhari vs drukhari mirror-matches is an order of magnitude smaller than marine-marine mirror matches and, to make matters even worse, many armies that aren't technically marines are statistically similar enough that you're very nearly looking at a mirror match (DG, GK, Custodes etc) - other than Harlequins few armies play similarly to drukhari.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/27 12:45:09


Post by: kirotheavenger


No, but when discussing how balanced a game is pick-rates and win-rates in competitive gaming is a popular place to look.

Primarily because we have statistics for that and you can reasonably assume that, when looking at top tables, player skill and intention (eg playing to win vs fluff) isn't a million miles apart.

The data is far less sanitary when looking over my local group.
There's that player who's just a bad player, every army they touch turns to gak. There's that try-harder that takes the most meta list he can and rofl stomps all over that other player. Etc etc.
Winrates can be absolutely all over the place for all manner of reasons.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/27 12:54:58


Post by: Jidmah


 kirotheavenger wrote:
No, but when discussing how balanced a game is pick-rates and win-rates in competitive gaming is a popular place to look.

Primarily because we have statistics for that and you can reasonably assume that, when looking at top tables, player skill and intention (eg playing to win vs fluff) isn't a million miles apart.

The data is far less sanitary when looking over my local group.
There's that player who's just a bad player, every army they touch turns to gak. There's that try-harder that takes the most meta list he can and rofl stomps all over that other player. Etc etc.
Winrates can be absolutely all over the place for all manner of reasons.


This, and often enough an army too powerful on a top competitive level also is too powerful at casual levels. Notable exceptions usually occur when a very specific combo is breaking tournament play that is unlikely to be part of a regular collection or particularly expensive to acquire. The 7 stormraven list is a good example of this, it had next to no impact on casual play.

But, as always, a single number is not a replacement for common sense.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/27 12:58:23


Post by: Gregor Samsa


Do we really need pseudoscientific statistical analysis on small N sample to know that raider/dark lance spam and skitarri spam is bad game design?

Every discussion of tournament win rates always devolves into critiques of social science methodologies which are tertiary to the topic at hand.

We don't need that to know DE and AdMech are poorly balanced.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/27 13:31:06


Post by: Karol


He is right about the fact that there is a difference, at least in some cases, between a powerful tournament list, which has a low chance to being seen at the store. And armies that are broken, because somehow the most common and popular units in them suddenly became OP.

If Ad mecha were powerful, the way they are now, but to be so they would require 6 FW tanks and 40 FW infantry, the impact would be a lot smaller, then when the basic trooper becomes the doom for other armies option.

It works in reverse too. In prior editions it would sometimes happen that tournament players would say that a faction is okey or even good, but what it requires to work is "just" a drone farm and max slots riptides. Or the above mentioned Gulliman or other re-roll base and a wall of razorbacks or stormravens.

I don't think that many GK players would be happy if someone at the studio decided to give my brotherhoods lore actual rules. And suddenly GK armies were made out of 50-60 combat sertivtors teleported in to enemy melee range turn 1. Specially if it somehow ended up both very powerful and the only proper way to play GKs.

On the flip side if GK termintors start running around with stormbolters that shot 4 times at str 5-6 with ap1-2, I would be happy, but everyone not playing GK , not so much.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/27 13:38:18


Post by: the_scotsman


Yep. Part of the reason why a codex drukhari/admech or a marines 2.0 caused such fervor compared to such builds as the infamous 'castellan+30 guardmen+smashcaptains" setup is that real people in casual settings actually have some of the things that are overpowering in their casual lists.

You have to make a much more active effort to avoid giving your opponent a bad time if the strong stuff in the 'dex is just...the standard troops, as opposed to weird FW/obscure allied combo funkiness.

This is, for the record, why the whole "BUT MUH ELDAR FLYERSPAM!!!" argument during marines 2.0 was bs. The number of people who could field a powerful marine army using....the contents of the game's starter boxes, vs the number of people who could bring whatever six eldar flyers to the table was preeeeeeetty lopsided.

Luckily for admech players, most of what sucks is just...stratagems. Skitarii aren't THAT crazy just on their own, if you reduced some of the combo-wombo nature of their stratagem power they'd be far less insane.

Enriched rounds going to 5+ autowound, 1CP for 10 or fewer models, 2CP for 11 or more, and the skitarii rangers one going to Assault 2 instead of Rapid Fire 2 would be a pretty solid way towards skitarii being less miserable to experience while still keeping them a satisfying, powerful unit that you can plop down on the table and get value out of.



40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/27 13:47:41


Post by: Karol


Well the eldar players did swtich to running 3-4 flyers, when castellans became the norm for imperial lists. So there is gradation to everything. And even singles can be annoying too. I did not get to expiriance it, because of codex delays, but 10 paladins in area terrain shoting out of LoS while buff stacking were annoying as hell, or so people say.

Transport of models is important too, at least in countries where a car is not the basic form of transportation. And I am ignoring people like me here. There arent many adults that will do a 2v2 hour trip to the store and back with 4 bags carrying all 8 of their hive tyrants.

In the end I think that GW will never be able to balance stuff. And it is better if they make all armies OP, because if all are then non is in reality. It does take a LONG time though. If tau get their codex end of this or start of next year, then this is a year of waiting with a kind of a meh list. But if csm are the same kind of a pushed back, then their players are having a no fun time for something like 3-4 years, and I don't even know how efficient or fun csm were pre 8th ed.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/27 13:52:15


Post by: SemperMortis


The problem with using meta data and comp data and than relating it to FLGS games is that a lot of people attempting to "Defend" a factions power rating will point to W/L ratio at tournaments as proof that a faction isn't that great, and at the same time they will also point out that most of the codex isn't really that powerful at all.

Great, but when they are dominating the top tables lets tone down those combo/wombos at the top and maybe minor nerfs to the biggest offenders. Christ the Ork 8th Edition codex wasn't OP in the slightest but people screamed for days about the Lootas bomb and the SSAG once we got that.

Scotsman has the right idea in and of itself, tone down the offending strats and maybe a few weapon profiles and the game balances itself out.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/27 13:55:59


Post by: kirotheavenger


I agree, it's important to consider the differences between competitive and casual play, whilst also considering the similarities.



40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/27 13:57:33


Post by: Daedalus81


 Gregor Samsa wrote:
Do we really need pseudoscientific statistical analysis on small N sample to know that raider/dark lance spam and skitarri spam is bad game design?

Every discussion of tournament win rates always devolves into critiques of social science methodologies which are tertiary to the topic at hand.

We don't need that to know DE and AdMech are poorly balanced.


Right. However, when we're discussing if the edition is "at it's worse point ever" and a small amount of data helps refute that despite Admech and DE being unbalanced.



40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/27 14:02:38


Post by: Tyel


I know its my hobby horse, but I disagree on the whole "infamous list" above. The issue was the Castellan completely warped the game at every level. You didn't need "the list" - you needed "Castellan+Mates". Guard was preferable, but Marines, Ad Mech, Custodes, possibly even Sisters (not sure I ever encountered this) would all work, because the Castellan was just that busted. (And many Chaos armies started throwing in a Knight, because if you can't beat them, join them.)

With that said I agree in principle that making stuff everyone has is more of an issue than rarities - although equally I'm no sure the examples today are really good ones. I'm suspect for instance any DE player in the world was sitting on 3-6 Cronos (having been more or less universally bad for years). And while some units have perhaps floated up the pecking order to become more relevant recently, its not as if Wracks, Drazhar and Incubi or the Court of the Archon were staples of the DE meta going back edition after edition. I'm not sure you can say "DE are a smol faction, every DE player's been around for 10 years and so should have a grab bag of just about every unit in the codex.." and definitely not a pile of Talos, Flyers and Venoms... who'd be stupid enough to have ever acquired some of those?

Equally I'm not convinced Ad Mech players have all been sitting on 60+ Skitarii just waiting for the day they could push these bricks forward to victory. Lascannon chickens have been good for a while - but acquiring the 6-8 of them appearing in lists represents commitment. Similar for the newish and extortionate dogs+flyers.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 0042/08/27 14:28:56


Post by: catbarf


I think the idea that you don't need to worry about tournament combos in casual play is a really weird sentiment in 2021, with list optimization being a common topic of discussion online.

Look at literally any hobby forum or social media venue where people ask for list advice. Are the replies more along the lines of 'we're all just casual players, take whatever you want!', or 'here's the three units and two stratagem combos you should take to make your army strong'? Gonna say more the latter.

That's not to say that everyone is netlisting the latest and greatest ITC builds, but 'take Castellan + Loyal 32' is not esoteric knowledge known only to a few, and you can find plenty of examples of casual players doing it because it worked.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/27 14:33:46


Post by: Ventus


 Gert wrote:
You've just made up a statistic though. That doesn't prove anything at all. I could easily just say that Drukhari lose all those games because we're just making up numbers.
And just as a side note, people really need to stop looking at tournament data IMO. Do you compare your casual running times with athletes who train for it? Do you compare your CoD K/D ratio with Esports players? I certainly don't.


What a magnificent whoosh. I feel compelled to point out that he literally made up the example to illustrate to people like you who can't read statistics how it is possible for a faction to win 100% of the games and still somehow end up with a far lower winrate.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/27 14:36:05


Post by: kirotheavenger


Even in casual play I would say competitive thinking is very common.
"X is really good, you should totally get it"
Or "Y is really cool, but it's pretty naff so I'd avoid it".
Are very common points in a discussion. People might not go all-in in the same way tournaments do, but they definitely trend in the same direction.

If a new unit comes out and it's good, it's everywhere. If it's crap, it's nowhere, and people lament how unplayable the cool new thing is.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/27 14:37:01


Post by: Gert


It was part of a discussion that was had some time ago about Comp VS Casual play, where it was sort of hashed out that the majority of Warhammer hobbyists don't post on forums or pages so any discussion had on said forums and pages is skewed towards those who have a greater interest in competitive play. In IRL discussion I'm not talking about the most optimised lists I can take, at most I'll comment on individual units or games but those always arise from the situation at hand, for example, I've started play testing Blackshields in 30k and my opponents noted how good the Marauder units seemed to be and we discussed it.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/27 14:39:09


Post by: Karol


Well in some cases it is true. But in others like the 2.0 space marines it was kind of a hard to not build an "OP" list. Had a class mate who started at the same time as I did, with 2 dark empires run as iron hands with 2 primaris dreads. Horrible list through out 8th ed. And then in a single day, he was made a persona non grata, who no one wanted to play, because his list run 40 intercessors, 10 hellblasters , 2 dreads and characters. People who week before were dunking on him with their lists, made him quit for being a unfun to play against.

Plus in this day an age nothing is esoteric anymore. No idea how lists spread 15-20 years ago, but today in two first weeks of heavy playtesting the good stuff is clear as day to everyone.

Plus it is a question of design too. If the design team is influanced by tournament players and tournament organisers, then the lists will often end up more skewed to be good for tournaments. If the test and design teams were all made out of painters or people that only play crusade the rules would be skewed those ways too.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/27 14:48:23


Post by: the_scotsman


Tyel wrote:
I know its my hobby horse, but I disagree on the whole "infamous list" above. The issue was the Castellan completely warped the game at every level. You didn't need "the list" - you needed "Castellan+Mates". Guard was preferable, but Marines, Ad Mech, Custodes, possibly even Sisters (not sure I ever encountered this) would all work, because the Castellan was just that busted. (And many Chaos armies started throwing in a Knight, because if you can't beat them, join them.)

With that said I agree in principle that making stuff everyone has is more of an issue than rarities - although equally I'm no sure the examples today are really good ones. I'm suspect for instance any DE player in the world was sitting on 3-6 Cronos (having been more or less universally bad for years). And while some units have perhaps floated up the pecking order to become more relevant recently, its not as if Wracks, Drazhar and Incubi or the Court of the Archon were staples of the DE meta going back edition after edition. I'm not sure you can say "DE are a smol faction, every DE player's been around for 10 years and so should have a grab bag of just about every unit in the codex.." and definitely not a pile of Talos, Flyers and Venoms... who'd be stupid enough to have ever acquired some of those?

Equally I'm not convinced Ad Mech players have all been sitting on 60+ Skitarii just waiting for the day they could push these bricks forward to victory. Lascannon chickens have been good for a while - but acquiring the 6-8 of them appearing in lists represents commitment. Similar for the newish and extortionate dogs+flyers.


No, but I think you're overselling what it takes for a player to have 'the killer list' in a casual setting.

To use an example: at the present moment, the guy with 'the killer list' is a guy who's been playing the same Admech+Krieg+1 knight warden for basically ever, but he really liked the skitarii stuff, particularly the Ranger models with hoods and long guns. He had about 40 skitarii, 6 of the ranger dog riders, he got one unit of the flying flamer dudes when those came out, and he had 2 Dunecrawlers and a couple of the autocannon chickens. It's a horseshoes and hand grenades thing - sure, it's not THE competitive tournament list, but getting "The most competitive list someone is playing in the club" just generally required him to have a skitarii-heavy admech collection, rather than getting 5 more boxes of the same relatively obscure unit, or skewing into like 1000+ points of flyers, or getting anything from Forgeworld, or getting into a whole new faction as allies.

My most powerful list, that I regularly have to purposefully take less competitive combos and traits to avoid stomping opponents, is basically just 'generally wych cults focused drukhari.' It's not the exact precision combo of whatever, but it's got enough wyches in raiders to have a super-nasty turn 2 crash, enough Hellions to dish 6 MWs if they get over you, a Voidraven that drops a huge bomb of MWs, and succubi that still wreck gak in combat even after the removal of the first crazy combo.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/27 15:21:11


Post by: Ordana


 catbarf wrote:
I think the idea that you don't need to worry about tournament combos in casual play is a really weird sentiment in 2021, with list optimization being a common topic of discussion online.

Look at literally any hobby forum or social media venue where people ask for list advice. Are the replies more along the lines of 'we're all just casual players, take whatever you want!', or 'here's the three units and two stratagem combos you should take to make your army strong'? Gonna say more the latter.

That's not to say that everyone is netlisting the latest and greatest ITC builds, but 'take Castellan + Loyal 32' is not esoteric knowledge known only to a few, and you can find plenty of examples of casual players doing it because it worked.
The problem with this reasoning is that you ignore the people who don't come to forums in the first place. Which from my experience with the casual members of my club is that most of them don't.

The people who come to forums for list advise tend to be looking for competitive advise because, as you said, the casual advise is "do whatever you feel like, it doesn't matter" and they don't need to go online to hear that. Therefor forums are full of competitive list advise.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/27 15:21:22


Post by: Karol


The problem with the castellan lists, was , at least for marine players, linked to the fact that marine lists weren't that good to begin with. Even before the castellan was a thing they often run the loyal 32. After the castellan came out, if was just a case of cutting the stuff that didn't work in the marine army, limit it to the basic cheapest scouts, who had utility with infiltration, and running smash hammer characters. It really didn't require a lot to do, especially when for a lot of armies the counter to castellan lists was running one of your own. As not everyone had a viable flyer lists like eldar had.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/27 15:22:45


Post by: Daedalus81


 Ventus wrote:
 Gert wrote:
You've just made up a statistic though. That doesn't prove anything at all. I could easily just say that Drukhari lose all those games because we're just making up numbers.
And just as a side note, people really need to stop looking at tournament data IMO. Do you compare your casual running times with athletes who train for it? Do you compare your CoD K/D ratio with Esports players? I certainly don't.


What a magnificent whoosh. I feel compelled to point out that he literally made up the example to illustrate to people like you who can't read statistics how it is possible for a faction to win 100% of the games and still somehow end up with a far lower winrate.


And he was noting that they were making up stats instead of referring to the actual events. So here's some actual events.

DE player losses --

Lonestar GT

Preece - Admech
Johnson - Necrons
Fennel - Necrons
Jackson - Admech & DE
QJohnson - Imperium & BA
Tweedel - Sisters & DG
Nanez - DG & Tau
Phillips - DG & Orks
Loots - DG, DE & DE
Borovilos - Admech, DE & Necrons
Shadwick - DG & Imperium ( 5 games only )
Wilson - Tau, DA, & Sisters ( draw vs DA )
Xie - DE ( 3 games only )

66 games w/o mirror & 20.5 losses = 45.5 wins = 69%

Meltdown DE losses

Root - none
Pallas - Imperium & Orks
Seeley - IW & Necrons ( draw to Custodes )
Cool - Admech, DE, Sisters ( 3 games only )

16 games w/o mirror, 6.5 losses = 60%


Midlothian GT

Beardsley - Admech
Pollack - Daemons
Csaszar - Admech
Lobb - Salamanders & Sisters
Strootman - Admech & DE
Phillips - Custodes & Necrons
Heatwole - DE & Chaos ( tie to WE )
Cardamone - Admech & Necrons ( tie to Chaos )

36 games w/o mirror, 12 losses = 66.7%


Kent GT

Bartkiewicz - Admech & Admech
Denton - DE, DG & DG
Cayuela - Admech, DE, WS & Necrons

14 games w/o mirror, 7 losses = 50%


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/27 15:25:23


Post by: Tyran


Casual meta is more complex than simply having/lacking "the killer" list.

Models and lists do not exist in a binary state of either being broken or being fine, but a spectrum that goes from being worthless to being OP.

A casual gamer might never face a net list and still have a horrible experience because their units are simply worthless while everyone else's are fine. This was my experience as a Tyranid player in 5th to 7th, in which 99% of the codex was so bad it wasn't even fieldable in a casual setting. Now the faction is still on the weak side of things, but I can actually play a casual game without feeling I'm handicapped.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/27 15:27:52


Post by: the_scotsman


 Tyran wrote:
Casual meta is more complex than simply having/lacking "the killer" list.

Models and lists do not exist in a binary state of either being broken or being fine, but a spectrum that goes from being worthless to being OP.

A casual gamer might never face a net list and still have a horrible experience because their units are simply worthless while everyone else's are fine. This was my experience as a Tyranid player in 5th to 7th, in which 99% of the codex was so bad it wasn't even fieldable in a casual setting. Now the faction is still on the weak side of things, but I can actually play a casual game without feeling I'm handicapped.


Yep. That is 100% true. In my experience, a player getting stuck with a bad book or having their favorite unit be bad is a much more common thing to happen than someone mysteriously 'lucking into' a killer, unbeatable list. The latter HAPPENS, and you always remember it, but players slowly dropping off because they for example love leman russ tanks and their list is just bad for 3 editions straight is much more common.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/27 15:49:11


Post by: Ventus


 Daedalus81 wrote:
And he was noting that they were making up stats instead of referring to the actual events.


Pointing out that hypotheticals conjured up for demonstration purposes aren't real is peak DakkaDakka.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/27 16:05:02


Post by: Karol


 Ordana wrote:


The people who come to forums for list advise tend to be looking for competitive advise because, as you said, the casual advise is "do whatever you feel like, it doesn't matter" and they don't need to go online to hear that. Therefor forums are full of competitive list advise.

That is a very bad advice by the way. A tournament player will just adjust or drop a bad list. Someone who doesn't want to go big at tournaments, may end up with a horrible army and gaming expiriance. Imagine telling a tau player in 9th that he should just pick what ever he likes, and then you see him spend a ton of money on something else then riptides.

In fact I would say that the over all powerful armies, like the ad mecha or DE, have an even bigger impact in non tournament metas. A tournament player will do the math and test, and then will decide if he can pilot a counter build or just jump the shark and play the best army at the time. What adjustment can a store marine player do, when playing vs something like as store players DE lists, when the difference between the store and tournament version is rather small.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/05/12 13:19:59


Post by: the_scotsman


Karol wrote:

In fact I would say that the over all powerful armies, like the ad mecha or DE, have an even bigger impact in non tournament metas. A tournament player will do the math and test, and then will decide if he can pilot a counter build or just jump the shark and play the best army at the time. What adjustment can a store marine player do, when playing vs something like as store players DE lists, when the difference between the store and tournament version is rather small.


In normal settings where people aren't weird sociopaths, typically after 1 or 2 games of one-sided stomps, if the two players enjoy playing against each other, they might do something like:

-have one of the two players bring bonus points of stuff
-try swapping out 1 or 2 units if they seem like super hard counters, i.e. if a unit of Incubi is really butchering the marines every time, maybe bring something else
-play without a particular rule. I generally just don't use Blade Artists

If you find yourself really, actually enjoying super one-sided games where it's clear that there's no mental thing you did to earn the win because before you got a new codex you didn't use to beat this player all the time and after the codex suddenly you never lose and it isn't even close, that's probably a sign that you should find some new avenue to get a 'win' in life that is more real/impactful. Train your body and play a physical sport or take a class to learn a new useful skill that you can take forward with you in your life.

In general, if you're substituting some good feeling from doing something in your life with a product that you're purchasing from a company, that's probably an indicator that there is some area of your life you ought to be working on. Gaining genuine pleasure from winning one-sided games of a system as imbalanced as 40k has exactly the same energy as going to a trophy store and buying yourself a trophy that says 'wrestling first place' and feeling proud of it.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/27 16:27:29


Post by: Karol


Yeah and I guess this does work in places where the norm is owning 3-4 armies. In places where the norm is one army, ending up with a bad one results, the person leaving the hobby, often for ever.

But then again it also shapes the inital buying too. If all you can afford is one army, as long as you are normal, or at least understand the idea of bad armies existing, you are not going to be picking bad stuff.

Plus here stuff like , can you not use X, would end up with the anwser of, sure just buy the models for me to replace the ones you don't want to play against. And that is assuming the person was in good state at the time, and it didn't just end with a no or something more harsh.

Plus sometimes you just can't downgrade enough. I remember a video report on YT eldar vs GK. no idea what edition it was, and what the guys were talking about, as I don't know hungarian. But the eldar army went second, had no cover, and all its down started turned butt to the front and at the end of turn 4 the game was done. They did seem to have fun and the GK player did make one of the serpents not move.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/27 16:31:07


Post by: the_scotsman


Karol wrote:
Yeah and I guess this does work in places where the norm is owning 3-4 armies. In places where the norm is one army, ending up with a bad one results, the person leaving the hobby, often for ever.

But then again it also shapes the inital buying too. If all you can afford is one army, as long as you are normal, or at least understand the idea of bad armies existing, you are not going to be picking bad stuff.

Plus here stuff like , can you not use X, would end up with the anwser of, sure just buy the models for me to replace the ones you don't want to play against.


Are you actually seriously claiming that literally everybody plays with 100% all of their collection and only ever owns exactly whatever the points value the game is being played as?

Even in that.....EXTREMELY suspicious situation, you can just do things like:

-give one player extra CP.
-give one player first turn
-not play with particular army-wide rules




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote:
I remember a video report on YT eldar vs GK. no idea what edition it was, and what the guys were talking about, as I don't know hungarian. But the eldar army went second, had no cover, and all its down started turned butt to the front and at the end of turn 4 the game was done. They did seem to have fun and the GK player did make one of the serpents not move.


it is one of my new favorite entries in the Karolverse canon that you literally hate Eldar so much and will seek out material that confirms that hatred so hard that you are willing to watch an entire battle report in a language that you don't understand from an edition of the game you've never played just to confirm that Eldar are OP and GK can never beat them

Never, ever, ever change Karol, you're my single favorite human being.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/27 16:57:39


Post by: IanMalcolmAbs


The new ork squigg boys are 25 points.


Daemon blood crushers are 40 points.

GW missing the mark here by about 50% they are a pretty comparable unit with the ork squiggy winning out. Discrepancy like this can't be tolerated by the community.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/27 17:03:32


Post by: CthuluIsSpy


 IanMalcolmAbs wrote:
The new ork squigg boys are 25 points.


Daemon blood crushers are 40 points.

GW missing the mark here by about 50% they are a pretty comparable unit with the ork squiggy winning out. Discrepancy like this can't be tolerated by the community.

Have blood crushers been updated though? If not, then it's not really a proper comparison.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/27 17:06:16


Post by: Gert


^Bingo.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/27 17:12:20


Post by: the_scotsman


 IanMalcolmAbs wrote:
The new ork squigg boys are 25 points.


Daemon blood crushers are 40 points.

GW missing the mark here by about 50% they are a pretty comparable unit with the ork squiggy winning out. Discrepancy like this can't be tolerated by the community.


I mean, it can, and does frequently do exactly that. Nobody (that I know of) would argue that Bloodcrushers are a particularly good unit, I don't see GW as being under any particular obligation to release their new unit purposefully bad just because a similar unit exists and is bad. It is worth noting that, while I definitely agree 40 is too much, bloodcrushers are in general not exactly the same thing:

-W4 vs W3, which is a fairly important breakpoint in terms of weapons being able to one-shot them
-5++ vs 6++
-Ld7 vs Ld6 (actually fairly relevant on a min 3-squad unit as it doubles the odds of the third model fleeing when you kill 2)
-7 attacks on the charge vs 5 attacks

Bloodcrushers are probably a 30pt model rather than a 40pt model, but I'm still not particularly scared of mass squighog boyz - they're strictly a turn 2 tempo unit and they basically just have to take your attacks on the chin turn 1. At least Bloodcrushers can take a maxed-out unit and say 'cool, I've got a 4++ for 2cp come at me'.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/27 17:25:19


Post by: Daedalus81


 Ventus wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
And he was noting that they were making up stats instead of referring to the actual events.


Pointing out that hypotheticals conjured up for demonstration purposes aren't real is peak DakkaDakka.


The hypothetical was an attempt null the data being presented, because we just always assume everything is mirror and the game is "at its worst point". That's peak Dakka.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/27 17:37:28


Post by: AnomanderRake


 the_scotsman wrote:
...I don't see GW as being under any particular obligation to release their new unit purposefully bad just because a similar unit exists and is bad...


They ought to be under an obligation to fix the bad unit instead of nailing themselves to their "oh, no, we can't fix that until their next army book comes out in two or three years!" schedule.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/27 17:46:30


Post by: Blastaar


 AnomanderRake wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
...I don't see GW as being under any particular obligation to release their new unit purposefully bad just because a similar unit exists and is bad...


They ought to be under an obligation to fix the bad unit instead of nailing themselves to their "oh, no, we can't fix that until their next army book comes out in two or three years!" schedule.


GW underutilizes unit cards. Include them in the box, if the unit's rules change, players can buy a new one on Wargame Vault. Like Wyrd does.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/27 18:00:34


Post by: Sim-Life


Blastaar wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
...I don't see GW as being under any particular obligation to release their new unit purposefully bad just because a similar unit exists and is bad...


They ought to be under an obligation to fix the bad unit instead of nailing themselves to their "oh, no, we can't fix that until their next army book comes out in two or three years!" schedule.


GW underutilizes unit cards. Include them in the box, if the unit's rules change, players can buy a new one on Wargame Vault. Like Wyrd does.


Do GW update the unit cards in the sets beyond codex updates? I was under the impression the only things they changed about units was in CA and even then it was only the points cost.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/27 18:06:57


Post by: Daedalus81


 Sim-Life wrote:

Do GW update the unit cards in the sets beyond codex updates? I was under the impression the only things they changed about units was in CA and even then it was only the points cost.


Very rarely they have changed profiles in CA. The exception rather than the rule.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/27 18:17:09


Post by: IanMalcolmAbs


 the_scotsman wrote:
 IanMalcolmAbs wrote:
The new ork squigg boys are 25 points.


Daemon blood crushers are 40 points.

GW missing the mark here by about 50% they are a pretty comparable unit with the ork squiggy winning out. Discrepancy like this can't be tolerated by the community.


I mean, it can, and does frequently do exactly that. Nobody (that I know of) would argue that Bloodcrushers are a particularly good unit, I don't see GW as being under any particular obligation to release their new unit purposefully bad just because a similar unit exists and is bad. It is worth noting that, while I definitely agree 40 is too much, bloodcrushers are in general not exactly the same thing:

-W4 vs W3, which is a fairly important breakpoint in terms of weapons being able to one-shot them
-5++ vs 6++
-Ld7 vs Ld6 (actually fairly relevant on a min 3-squad unit as it doubles the odds of the third model fleeing when you kill 2)
-7 attacks on the charge vs 5 attacks

Bloodcrushers are probably a 30pt model rather than a 40pt model, but I'm still not particularly scared of mass squighog boyz - they're strictly a turn 2 tempo unit and they basically just have to take your attacks on the chin turn 1. At least Bloodcrushers can take a maxed-out unit and say 'cool, I've got a 4++ for 2cp come at me'.

They aren't a "great unit" by far. That is the issue. Some units are unquestionably worse than what is already considered "good units" then we have this nonsensical power creep going out just making them worse and worse. Both these units would probably be fair at 30-35 points. but one costs 25 and the other 40. It is a joke. Why even have a CA points change for one unit if you aren't going to address every unit?

Also you bring stratagems into the mix. Stratagems have nothing to do with how a unit is pointed. The stratagem itself has a cost and limitations - it is up to the stratagem to regulate itself. That is the only way that can work.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/27 18:22:12


Post by: Tyel


 the_scotsman wrote:
Bloodcrushers are probably a 30pt model rather than a 40pt model, but I'm still not particularly scared of mass squighog boyz - they're strictly a turn 2 tempo unit and they basically just have to take your attacks on the chin turn 1. At least Bloodcrushers can take a maxed-out unit and say 'cool, I've got a 4++ for 2cp come at me'.


Hmmm. I think that's very sanguine on Squighogs. I can see potentially soft issues on base size if people try to spam them, and I wouldn't expect people to go 3*6 except for the fun of it because of that (and Blast).

But... (and maybe this is playing Orks as Dark Eldar) for 75 points (or 80 with Bomb Squig) you have a relatively cheap unit that should easily get its points back versus most things you charge into. If you focus it down then sure it dies - but I don't think its that trivial to clear 6-9 T6 4+/6++ wounds. And if your say 2 squads are focused down turn 1, you've got another 1850 odd points running around the table so I'm not sure its the end of the world. Orks themselves could be a bad matchup with rokkit spam - but there aren't huge numbers of flat damage 3 weapons in the game. If 25 point hogz start eating melta/dark lances, that's great news unless you have no vehicles in your list.

Points made (in other threads) about them not flying are reasonable - but then arguably neither do lots of DE units after they disembark. With a theoretically maximum move of 20"+4D6 they should be able to largely go after wherever you want them to on turn 2.

Similar story with the Squigosaurs. Agree with some that they may be being overhyped *in themselves*. But the point is that they are cheap, so don't need to make that much of a contribution, or be *that* annoying to deal with to be very powerful.

Will you be able to deal with them and Kommandos, and Storm Boyz, and some Truck Boyz and maybe that 30 man Choppa Blob that still has a 40%~ chance with a reroll on the cast to appear in your lines Turn 1 (and if they fail to charge, really has to be dealt with on top of all this stuff)?

I don't think any of these things are game breaking in themselves - but as we see with DE, its about how lots of aggressively tuned things together makes a monstrous whole.

But its early days for Orks anyway.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/27 18:26:21


Post by: the_scotsman


 AnomanderRake wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
...I don't see GW as being under any particular obligation to release their new unit purposefully bad just because a similar unit exists and is bad...


They ought to be under an obligation to fix the bad unit instead of nailing themselves to their "oh, no, we can't fix that until their next army book comes out in two or three years!" schedule.


Yep, agreed. I am continuously and intensely frustrated by GW's utter disinterest in maintaining what currently exists in the game as opposed to hocking whatever the new hotness is. It especially sucks when, as is the case with the current Ork 'dex, it's very clear that a whole lot has been shoved off to one side in order to make room for new things you're supposed to buy.

Neither of those things are actually the complaint being stated here, though. What's being said here is that because an existing unit with a particular unit design paradigm generally doesn't work, the new unit shouldn't be allowed to work and pay a fair point cost for its level of power.

And it's true that GW has generally overvalued close assault units that are too slow to get to their intended targets in a single turn which also lack delivery mechanisms.

I think for bloodcrushers the fix is really just as simple as a modest points drop, honestly, their rules work fine with where their general power level in-lore should be, and you look at the unit and it's about as strong and as tough as you think it ought to be instinctively. It looks like a big nasty rhinocerous that would really feth you up if it charged you, it's a big nasty rhinocerous that really feths you up if it charges you.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/27 18:33:42


Post by: Gene St. Ealer


 IanMalcolmAbs wrote:

They aren't a "great unit" by far. That is the issue. Some units are unquestionably worse than what is already considered "good units" then we have this nonsensical power creep going out just making them worse and worse. Both these units would probably be fair at 30-35 points. but one costs 25 and the other 40. It is a joke. Why even have a CA points change for one unit if you aren't going to address every unit?

Also you bring stratagems into the mix. Stratagems have nothing to do with how a unit is pointed. The stratagem itself has a cost and limitations - it is up to the stratagem to regulate itself. That is the only way that can work.


This gets at one of my main issues with Chapter Approved/MFM. It's so, so, so bleeping arbitrary. You have the nerfs, which are usually at least a tiny bit deserved (except for that hilarious Ogryn nonsense back in 2019), either because the internal or external balance is off. Okay, fine. But even that is kind of arbitrarily applied, and often the nerfs via points increases don't really solve the problem (see the DE post-FAQ patch). Then the buffs are where it gets stupid. The biggest buffs tend to be to the already strongest units in the book, or the linchpins. Like, the Swarmlord. Why the hell did he get buffed in the last CA??? Nids have a whole menagerie of garbage units, and Swarmie is the one who gets the buff. It's like GW's paying attention to the competitive meta there (they know Nids need help, so they throw them a small bone... minus the nerf to the Dimachaeron at the same time), but we know they don't do that. So does GW really think the Haruspex or the Hive Crone is good?

And honestly, Nids had it better than some factions. Did Daemons get any points changes last go-round? I guess maybe I remember them nerfing LoC (but not Keepers of Secrets, who also showed up in the early days of 9e). Or Tau, with that frankly silly Riptide points change. It's just bad, the incompetence is pretty astounding.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/27 18:35:00


Post by: the_scotsman


Tyel wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
Bloodcrushers are probably a 30pt model rather than a 40pt model, but I'm still not particularly scared of mass squighog boyz - they're strictly a turn 2 tempo unit and they basically just have to take your attacks on the chin turn 1. At least Bloodcrushers can take a maxed-out unit and say 'cool, I've got a 4++ for 2cp come at me'.


Hmmm. I think that's very sanguine on Squighogs. I can see potentially soft issues on base size if people try to spam them, and I wouldn't expect people to go 3*6 except for the fun of it because of that (and Blast).

But... (and maybe this is playing Orks as Dark Eldar) for 75 points (or 80 with Bomb Squig) you have a relatively cheap unit that should easily get its points back versus most things you charge into.


3 of them deal 5 unsaved wounds to a vehicle or eat a min GEQ squad. it's really only MEQ you need to keep them away from, their S5/S6 with moderate AP keeps them from being a real threat to vehicles.

compare to equal points of drukhari Incubi, which deal 10 damage to a vehicle profile.

I don't think squighog boyz are quite the 'murder-everything' unit that people are currently painting them as. They're sure not nothing, but getting charged by them isnt the automatic trade up death sentence people are currently hyping it up to be. They're just properly costed for something without spectacular defenses that has to take it on the chin for at least one turn before they're allowed to deal any damage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 IanMalcolmAbs wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
 IanMalcolmAbs wrote:
The new ork squigg boys are 25 points.


Daemon blood crushers are 40 points.

GW missing the mark here by about 50% they are a pretty comparable unit with the ork squiggy winning out. Discrepancy like this can't be tolerated by the community.


I mean, it can, and does frequently do exactly that. Nobody (that I know of) would argue that Bloodcrushers are a particularly good unit, I don't see GW as being under any particular obligation to release their new unit purposefully bad just because a similar unit exists and is bad. It is worth noting that, while I definitely agree 40 is too much, bloodcrushers are in general not exactly the same thing:

-W4 vs W3, which is a fairly important breakpoint in terms of weapons being able to one-shot them
-5++ vs 6++
-Ld7 vs Ld6 (actually fairly relevant on a min 3-squad unit as it doubles the odds of the third model fleeing when you kill 2)
-7 attacks on the charge vs 5 attacks

Bloodcrushers are probably a 30pt model rather than a 40pt model, but I'm still not particularly scared of mass squighog boyz - they're strictly a turn 2 tempo unit and they basically just have to take your attacks on the chin turn 1. At least Bloodcrushers can take a maxed-out unit and say 'cool, I've got a 4++ for 2cp come at me'.

They aren't a "great unit" by far. That is the issue. Some units are unquestionably worse than what is already considered "good units" then we have this nonsensical power creep going out just making them worse and worse. Both these units would probably be fair at 30-35 points. but one costs 25 and the other 40. It is a joke. Why even have a CA points change for one unit if you aren't going to address every unit?

Also you bring stratagems into the mix. Stratagems have nothing to do with how a unit is pointed. The stratagem itself has a cost and limitations - it is up to the stratagem to regulate itself. That is the only way that can work.


...except that, in my eyes, it's only actually 'power creep' if the particular unit in question is OP when compared to the actual current game "average joe" unit. Codex: Daemons was, after all, designed for a completely different edition of the game, and as such it's in an extremely wonky place when looked at holistically for internal and external balance with certain units (such as slaanesh units) being massively above the power curve they were probably designed for while others (particularly tzeentch units) are far, far below.

I completely 1000% agree with your frustration regarding CA. I may or may not go extremely out of my way to not only not purchase that particular publication but ensure that others also do not purchase it, because the stated goal of continual balance is so blatantly unevenly applied between factions gw considers 'a priority' and factions that they do not.

Where I disagree is viewing the squighog boyz as an example of 'power creep'. I would be *extremely* surprised to see them cleaning it up against basically any competitive meta setup. A competently set up Tau list would absolutely eat their lunch, and theyre not especially notoriously powerful at the moment.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/27 19:24:44


Post by: Tyel


 the_scotsman wrote:
3 of them deal 5 unsaved wounds to a vehicle or eat a min GEQ squad. it's really only MEQ you need to keep them away from, their S5/S6 with moderate AP keeps them from being a real threat to vehicles.

compare to equal points of drukhari Incubi, which deal 10 damage to a vehicle profile.

I don't think squighog boyz are quite the 'murder-everything' unit that people are currently painting them as. They're sure not nothing, but getting charged by them isnt the automatic trade up death sentence people are currently hyping it up to be. They're just properly costed for something without spectacular defenses that has to take it on the chin for at least one turn before they're allowed to deal any damage.


I think you are underselling them.

I mean lets make them Snakebites for +1 to wound and Waaagh for the extra attack.
Onto a Rhino (T7 3+).

Stikkas: 12*5/6*1/2*2/3*2=6.6.
Jaws: 6*5/6*1/2*1/2*2=2.5
Saddlegit: 3*5/6*1/2*1/3=0.416.
Total: 9.51 wounds.

To be fair, not sure people will be going Snakebites - so with Goths:
Stikkas: 8 (12*1*1/2 (due to S7), *2/3*2=8.)
Jaws: 1.66
Saddlegit: 0.33.
Total: 10 Wounds.

Am I doing something wrong? Yes in both cases you are dependent on Waaagh giving that +1 attack and charging with an assault-focused Kultur but I don't think that's an unreasonable ask.

Also not touched on the bomb squig, which seems to be roll a dice, 3+ =d3 mortal wounds, 2+ on vehicles. For an incredibly token 5 points that's good versus everything and incredibly good against lots of things.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/27 19:28:59


Post by: IanMalcolmAbs


These hogs are gonna be a real big problem IMO. 150 points gets you 18 t6 wounds moving up the table quickly. Advance and charge no problem. Sure you can kill it but it's gonna require str 6+ firepower to really do it. Anything they touch unmolestedly dies.

I mean FFS these guys are cheaper than a heavy intercessor.



40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 8021/05/14 09:43:03


Post by: Gert


"Squig Pigs have ruined the balance of 40k" is not something I ever expected to hear in this hobby.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/27 20:21:27


Post by: CthuluIsSpy


 IanMalcolmAbs wrote:
These hogs are gonna be a real big problem IMO. 150 points gets you 18 t6 wounds moving up the table quickly. Advance and charge no problem. Sure you can kill it but it's gonna require str 6+ firepower to really do it. Anything they touch unmolestedly dies.

I mean FFS these guys are cheaper than a heavy intercessor.


Don't they have crap for armor though?
Yeah, they're cheap and they have some wounds, but how quickly can you drain those wounds with heavy weapons?
Perhaps the reason why they are that cheap is because they are expected to die quickly if you use the right weapon?


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/27 20:22:52


Post by: IanMalcolmAbs


 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
 IanMalcolmAbs wrote:
These hogs are gonna be a real big problem IMO. 150 points gets you 18 t6 wounds moving up the table quickly. Advance and charge no problem. Sure you can kill it but it's gonna require str 6+ firepower to really do it. Anything they touch unmolestedly dies.

I mean FFS these guys are cheaper than a heavy intercessor.


Don't they have crap for armor though?
Yeah, they're cheap and they have some wounds, but how quickly can you drain those wounds with heavy weapons?

With the right weapons they will get smoked.
They are T6 though. Their armor is also not complete crap - it is 4+ and they have a 6++ save.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/27 20:26:37


Post by: CthuluIsSpy


 IanMalcolmAbs wrote:
 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
 IanMalcolmAbs wrote:
These hogs are gonna be a real big problem IMO. 150 points gets you 18 t6 wounds moving up the table quickly. Advance and charge no problem. Sure you can kill it but it's gonna require str 6+ firepower to really do it. Anything they touch unmolestedly dies.

I mean FFS these guys are cheaper than a heavy intercessor.


Don't they have crap for armor though?
Yeah, they're cheap and they have some wounds, but how quickly can you drain those wounds with heavy weapons?

With the right weapons they will get smoked.
They are T6 though. Their armor is also not complete crap - it is 4+ and they have a 6++ save.

Oof that is decent. Well, at least GW is encouraging players to take heavier weapons I guess.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/27 21:14:27


Post by: Karol


Would be nice then If they gave all factions access to an ability to spam those heavier weapons

But hardly a game breaking problem for w40k.
Ork stuff is good or at least curious to look at. With the other good in 9th it was clear at first sight what was the broken stuff.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/27 21:47:58


Post by: vipoid


Blastaar wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
...I don't see GW as being under any particular obligation to release their new unit purposefully bad just because a similar unit exists and is bad...


They ought to be under an obligation to fix the bad unit instead of nailing themselves to their "oh, no, we can't fix that until their next army book comes out in two or three years!" schedule.


GW underutilizes unit cards. Include them in the box, if the unit's rules change, players can buy a new one on Wargame Vault. Like Wyrd does.


A shame we're still living in the 1950s, otherwise we might be able to forego printed rules and instead have free, downloadable PDFs that can be updated whenever necessary.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/27 22:02:20


Post by: Jidmah


 Gert wrote:
"Squig Pigs have ruined the balance of 40k" is not something I ever expected to hear in this hobby.


If you've been an ork player on dakka long enough, you will get used to people whining about every single entry in your codex as being OP and call for nerfs and bans of everything that made someone win a three people tournament held in the backyard of a school. Some people just can't stomach some green hooligans beating the tar out of their bestest at everything super soldiers, while the orks aren't even taking the whole thing seriously.

Can't wait for the thread where someone to completely loses their gak because a wyrd boy on foot managed to hit their entire army at once with frazzle.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/27 22:02:31


Post by: Galas


By today standards a meele unit that doesnt insta deletes whatever it charges is not viable, so I would not judge the squid hogs by that metric but by how are they gonna engage their intended target.

Thats the real problem with OP meele units, like repentia charging from a rhino at 27" with a guaranteed 12" charge, for example.

If the only possibility of those porks to charge something is to move (with big bases and without an hability to ignore terrain) straight towards them (So any kind of screen will completely stop them) then it does not matter their offensive power unless we are speaking about some kind of Omega level threat with a absurd defensive profile. They'll be fine.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/27 22:12:14


Post by: Formosa


I picked up the new marines codex and codex dark angels.

And I am absolutely overwhelmed with so much information, I have no idea where to start with these books, I stopped playing halfway through 8th as I did not like the rules or the way the game was played.

got the 9th book and kinda liked the changes but due to the coof I have been working solid and only now really had a chance to dig in properly and have to say I am opining for a simpler ruleset like 3rd or 4th, hell even 5th.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/27 22:19:46


Post by: CEO Kasen


Yeah, that's kinda it, right? They've streamlined the core engine but then gone overboard in terms of adding 'flavor' without doing anything so structurally useful as boiling common rules down to USRs, and then the resulting system is way too complex and top-heavy. Kind of reminds me of D&D 3.0/3.5, where it was great fun to think up a force or character and imagine what they could do, but way less fun to actually try to have a battle with it.

It's kind of this engine intended for a Piper Cub trying to carry the weight of a commercial airliner.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/27 22:26:43


Post by: The Red Hobbit


That's a great example, D&D 3.X has the relatively lightweight d20 core mechanic but every indidivudal character, NPC or Monster can just be completely buried in the endless amount of options between skill, feats, (prestige-)class features, templates, etc. that it's just a giant pain to deal with when running a game. Not so bad if you're a player with only one character to worry about it.

Applying that to 40k, it's okay to have layers upon layers of rules if you're a Custodes or other ultra expensive ppm army. But for everyone else there's just a headache of rules to have to remember.

Also, agree with Vipoid. It is astonishing to me that you can release a new edition then tell people to wait 1-2 years for their army to get an update. I can't think of any other game company who gets a pass like that.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/27 22:42:08


Post by: xttz


 The Red Hobbit wrote:

Also, agree with Vipoid. It is astonishing to me that you can release a new edition then tell people to wait 1-2 years for their army to get an update. I can't think of any other game company who gets a pass like that.


What gets me is that CA17 came with a bunch of extra interim rules for factions without a codex. It was literally just a page each but it helped.
Why couldn't they do the same alongside the FAQs or CA21, adding faction-specific secondaries or upgrading army traits?


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/27 22:44:19


Post by: Voss


 The Red Hobbit wrote:
That's a great example, D&D 3.X has the relatively lightweight d20 core mechanic but every indidivudal character, NPC or Monster can just be completely buried in the endless amount of options between skill, feats, (prestige-)class features, templates, etc. that it's just a giant pain to deal with when running a game. Not so bad if you're a player with only one character to worry about it.

Applying that to 40k, it's okay to have layers upon layers of rules if you're a Custodes or other ultra expensive ppm army. But for everyone else there's just a headache of rules to have to remember.

Also, agree with Vipoid. It is astonishing to me that you can release a new edition then tell people to wait 1-2 years for their army to get an update. I can't think of any other game company who gets a pass like that.


Rackham was much worse. Some armies never even got launched, despite being on the schedule indefinitely.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/27 22:58:07


Post by: The Red Hobbit


 xttz wrote:
 The Red Hobbit wrote:

Also, agree with Vipoid. It is astonishing to me that you can release a new edition then tell people to wait 1-2 years for their army to get an update. I can't think of any other game company who gets a pass like that.


What gets me is that CA17 came with a bunch of extra interim rules for factions without a codex. It was literally just a page each but it helped.
Why couldn't they do the same alongside the FAQs or CA21, adding faction-specific secondaries or upgrading army traits?


Yeah the only reason we don't get updated digital rules is because that would cut into $50 book sales. Good ol'greed.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/27 23:03:57


Post by: vipoid


 Formosa wrote:
I picked up the new marines codex and codex dark angels.

And I am absolutely overwhelmed with so much information, I have no idea where to start with these books, I stopped playing halfway through 8th as I did not like the rules or the way the game was played.


I'd heard that the AdMech book was looking really overpowered so I took a glance at the leaks, just out of curiosity.

My first impression was that they might as well have been written in another language for all I could discern from them. It's not just the layered rules, it's that so many rules have stupidly verbose names that make them completely unintuitive for someone trying to get to grips with an unfamiliar army.

Though even the ones that aren't written in faux Latin or in GW copywrite speak (sorry, I of course meant "Scriptures of the Order Exemplum Scribere TM") often end up being completely unintuitive anyway.

As an example, pretend you know nothing about Dark Eldar - what comes to your mind when you hear the words "Power from Pain"? I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you'd expect a unit with that rule to get a boost either when it wounds/kills an enemy unit or else when it takes damage (but isn't killed). Nope, it's a completely non-interactive table that just advances by 1 each turn regardless of anything a given unit is doing or anything happening on the field in general.

You can consider this a minor gripe but when the game is as bloated as 40k and players have to remember not just unit rules and weapon rules but also faction rules, subfaction rules, psychic powers, prayers, artefacts, warlord traits, 4 million stratagems etc. it would really help if those things at least had intuitive names. Instead, you could probably rename many rules "Quest for the Sausage Fountain" or "Surprisingly Large Nose" and they'd make just as much sense as they do now.


 CEO Kasen wrote:
Yeah, that's kinda it, right? They've streamlined the core engine but then gone overboard in terms of adding 'flavor' without doing anything so structurally useful as boiling common rules down to USRs, and then the resulting system is way too complex and top-heavy. Kind of reminds me of D&D 3.0/3.5, where it was great fun to think up a force or character and imagine what they could do, but way less fun to actually try to have a battle with it.

It's kind of this engine intended for a Piper Cub trying to carry the weight of a commercial airliner.


The other aspect is that most of the special rules that supposedly add flavour just end up being a waste of ink. 99% of the time they add no flavour whatsoever, let alone any interesting gameplay. A fact not helped by GW's naming policy:

"Acute Reflexes" - This unit rerolls to-hit rolls of 1.
"Twisted Senses" - This unit rerolls to-hit rolls of 1.
"Master Tactician" - This unit rerolls to-hit rolls of 1.
"Unrivalled Duellist" - This unit rerolls to-hit rolls of 1.
"Chosen of the God Emperor" - This unit rerolls to-hit rolls of 1.
"EMPOWERED BY THE DAEMON LORD DRAKHOSTVXH, DREAD RULER OF THE NIGHTMARE LABARYNTH OF CHAOS" - This unit rerolls to-hit rolls of 1.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/27 23:23:00


Post by: The Red Hobbit


Hahaha, that is a great point. Having a rule with an intuitive name is very helpful especially for a new player. While weird latin can be a fun flavor item it's not great when its dialed up to 11.

The Reroll Hits of 1 example had me cracking up.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/27 23:40:56


Post by: Salt donkey


I’ve said this before on this Forum, but I’ll say it again here because it bears repeating. The casual competitive divide is really just a divide between “those who play often” vs “those who don’t.”

A obvious statement to is “humans like winning and dislike losing.” This of course will mean people will take steps to achieve winning and avoid losing. Why is this important, well if a player plays frequently they will continue to evolve to beat one another. If I and my best friend just got into the game knowing nothing, but he beats me the first 3 games we play I’m likely to take a number of actions to change this. One of these will likely be looking online/asking a better player for competitive advice on how to play my army and beat my fiends. I therefore, likely spend my next available income on units/armies the internet tells me is good. If I then beat my friend using this advice, he will likely do the same; and the cycle continues. This is doubly true if you are playing with a group of friends, as everyone fights to make the best army. The key here is that is evolution only happens as fast as a person plays. If I play once a week with my friend, we will learn pretty quickly what’s good and what’s not. If I/we only play once every 3 months, then we might not even competitively evolve because the loser of those games may not even be invested enough in the gaming aspect of the hobby to care.

This competitive level might also diminish if you “win” in other aspects of the hobby. This might come from painting/converting/storytelling/arguing on forums like this. Regardless, any of these aspects might cause you to play less and therefor consider yourself a “more casual gamer.”

So those getting offended by me emphasizing competitive games; how many games are you playing? Is in the realm of 1 game a week, or is it treading more towards many months inbetween? I doubt many(if any) will in the low camp will admit to it, but it’s an interesting thought experiment none-the-less”.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 01:02:27


Post by: Vaktathi


 vipoid wrote:
 Formosa wrote:
I picked up the new marines codex and codex dark angels.

And I am absolutely overwhelmed with so much information, I have no idea where to start with these books, I stopped playing halfway through 8th as I did not like the rules or the way the game was played.


I'd heard that the AdMech book was looking really overpowered so I took a glance at the leaks, just out of curiosity.

My first impression was that they might as well have been written in another language for all I could discern from them. It's not just the layered rules, it's that so many rules have stupidly verbose names that make them completely unintuitive for someone trying to get to grips with an unfamiliar army.
This, 200,000% this.

The single biggest thing at this point, now that gaming venues are back open, keeping me from hopping back in, is trying to discern what the everloving hell all these new units are. Opening a book and getting faceblasted by an angry gorilla with a fully automatic thesaurus that adjectivizes 3,000 words a minute is not fun. If I can't tell an Intercessor from an Interceptor from an Inceptor, I'm going to stop caring real quick.



40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 01:13:01


Post by: Insectum7


^I lol'd

Also, I agree. I don't understand their new "language style". That compounded with the overly complex-yet-restrictuve datasheet formats is a turn off.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 01:58:43


Post by: CEO Kasen


 Vaktathi wrote:
 vipoid wrote:

I'd heard that the AdMech book was looking really overpowered so I took a glance at the leaks, just out of curiosity.

My first impression was that they might as well have been written in another language for all I could discern from them. It's not just the layered rules, it's that so many rules have stupidly verbose names that make them completely unintuitive for someone trying to get to grips with an unfamiliar army.
This, 200,000% this.

The single biggest thing at this point, now that gaming venues are back open, keeping me from hopping back in, is trying to discern what the everloving hell all these new units are. Opening a book and getting faceblasted by an angry gorilla with a fully automatic thesaurus that adjectivizes 3,000 words a minute is not fun. If I can't tell an Intercessor from an Interceptor from an Inceptor, I'm going to stop caring real quick.



Ooh, ooh, let's not forget that the supposedly 'newbie friendly' 'easy to use' Space Marine army now basically has no two Primaris units with the same weapons, so now instead of "Boltgun, Bolt Pistol, Storm Bolter and Heavy Bolter" we have to differentiate the Bolt Carbine from the Auto Bolt Rifle from the Storm Bolter from the Hellstorm Bolt Rifle from the Hellstorm Heavy Bolter from the Heavy Bolt Rifle (which is Rapid Fire, btw) from the Executioner Bolt Rifle from the Instigator Bolt Funnel from the Stalker Bolt Lathe from the Reverse Bolt Cowgirl from the...


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 02:18:50


Post by: catbarf


I straight up can't get new players into 40K. There's just too much stuff to learn. AOS has proven more newbie-friendly so far.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 02:23:17


Post by: Daedalus81


 Formosa wrote:
I picked up the new marines codex and codex dark angels.

And I am absolutely overwhelmed with so much information, I have no idea where to start with these books, I stopped playing halfway through 8th as I did not like the rules or the way the game was played.

got the 9th book and kinda liked the changes but due to the coof I have been working solid and only now really had a chance to dig in properly and have to say I am opining for a simpler ruleset like 3rd or 4th, hell even 5th.


Don't stress taking it all in at once. Play and learn as you go. There's no shame in forgetting things or learning new tricks along the way.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 02:28:24


Post by: H.B.M.C.


I made a joke once about needing a two week correspondence course to figure out how to use the AdMech book. Glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks that book is a landmine of verbose excess.

Even small examples of their rules have this issue. Take this from the Iron Hands book:



I'm all for being thorough and unambiguous with rules, but do they need to repeat the phrase "Once that phase, when resolving an attack made with a ranged weapon by a model from that unit..." three times in the same paragraph?

 xttz wrote:
What gets me is that CA17 came with a bunch of extra interim rules for factions without a codex. It was literally just a page each but it helped.
Why couldn't they do the same alongside the FAQs or CA21, adding faction-specific secondaries or upgrading army traits?
I've brought that up before. They should be doing that for get-you-by faction-specific Crusade rules.

It would certainly make the book more worthwhile then just a reprint of the damned core rules again.

 vipoid wrote:
"Acute Reflexes" - This unit rerolls to-hit rolls of 1.
"Twisted Senses" - This unit rerolls to-hit rolls of 1.
"Master Tactician" - This unit rerolls to-hit rolls of 1.
"Unrivalled Duellist" - This unit rerolls to-hit rolls of 1.
"Chosen of the God Emperor" - This unit rerolls to-hit rolls of 1.
"EMPOWERED BY THE DAEMON LORD DRAKHOSTVXH, DREAD RULER OF THE NIGHTMARE LABARYNTH OF CHAOS" - This unit rerolls to-hit rolls of 1.
This comes down to GW's obsession with 'bespoke' rules, whilst at the same time not actually having enough variance in rules to make such an undertaking worthwhile.

People bemoan USRs, but USRs would allow you to have all your fancy splashy silly named rules whilst keeping everything in a sensible order.

I mean imagine if there was a rule called "Accurate". This rule allowed you to re-roll to-hit rolls of 1.

Then you could have:

"Twisted Senses" - The unit has the Accurate USR.
"Master Tactician" - The unit has the Accurate USR.
"The Flan of Ages" - The unit has the Accurate USR.
"MASSIVE FEET!" - The unit has the Accurate USR.

It means you have one source of rules, requiring you to update only one thing (rather than tracking different variants/wordings of the rule across multiple units in multiple books), but you can keep the race-specific flavouring of rules so that it fits with the theme.



40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 02:41:50


Post by: Argive


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I made a joke once about needing a two week correspondence course to figure out how to use the AdMech book. Glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks that book is a landmine of verbose excess.

Even small examples of their rules have this issue. Take this from the Iron Hands book:



I'm all for being thorough and unambiguous with rules, but do they need to repeat the phrase "Once that phase, when resolving an attack made with a ranged weapon by a model from that unit..." three times in the same paragraph?

 xttz wrote:
What gets me is that CA17 came with a bunch of extra interim rules for factions without a codex. It was literally just a page each but it helped.
Why couldn't they do the same alongside the FAQs or CA21, adding faction-specific secondaries or upgrading army traits?
I've brought that up before. They should be doing that for get-you-by faction-specific Crusade rules.

It would certainly make the book more worthwhile then just a reprint of the damned core rules again.


Sadly they do.
Because otherwise you would get some <insert pejorative of choice> say in that voice which screams; "i have no friends" say:

"Whwwwweeeeelllll aaaahhhhhctuallly because it doesn't say once per phase.. by RRRRAAAWWWWW It applies to all shooting phases/ its unlimited rerolls. I'm smart me. Derpa derpa derp. GW bad at rules writing. "

Now don't get me wrong Im the first one to call out GW for their stupidity.
But some of the arguments that get brought up on the you make da call on sub forum are straight up ridiculous...


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 0052/07/28 02:46:49


Post by: H.B.M.C.


They don't need it three times though.

"Once that phase, when resolving an attack made with a ranged weapon from that unit, you may re-roll one hit roll and/or one wound roll and/or one damage roll."

The "and/or" allows you to do one or two parts of the rule, and not the other, stopping the "If you re-roll one you have to re-roll the other two" people that talk in the aforementioned 'I have no friends' voice.



40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 02:57:50


Post by: Argive


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They don't need it three times though.

"Once that phase, when resolving an attack made with a ranged weapon from that unit, you may re-roll one hit roll and/or one wound roll and/or one damage roll."

The "and/or" allows you to do one or two parts of the rule, and not the other, stopping the "If you re-roll one you have to re-roll the other two" people that talk in the aforementioned 'I have no friends' voice.



My point was that I think some of this might be driven by players taking the piss if there is any slight wording ambiguity even if the obvious intent is obvious.
I'm sure they hate having to FAQ stuff that everyone and their mother can see did not really need FAQ.

I'm glad the current edition is following the FAQ trend and correcting things promptly.
Of course if they got it right the first time there would be no need to the FAQ lol.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 03:13:37


Post by: drbored


GW's new language style is an attempt of them trying to give players what they think players want.

Players keep complaining about balance, not enough uniqueness in an army, they complain about rules with bad loopholes.

What do you get when you try to close loopholes? You get Legalese, and the rules are starting to sound more and more like Legalese. A lot of legalese begins with a layout of Definitions. In 40k, these definitions are made by giving things keywords.

But then, this is one of those 'careful what you wish for' situations. All through 5th-7th, people begged for more FAQ's, better balance, more unique rules to make the armies feel distinguished... And this is how they're trying to satisfy all of that.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 03:24:24


Post by: Altima


 CEO Kasen wrote:


Ooh, ooh, let's not forget that the supposedly 'newbie friendly' 'easy to use' Space Marine army now basically has no two Primaris units with the same weapons, so now instead of "Boltgun, Bolt Pistol, Storm Bolter and Heavy Bolter" we have to differentiate the Bolt Carbine from the Auto Bolt Rifle from the Storm Bolter from the Hellstorm Bolt Rifle from the Hellstorm Heavy Bolter from the Heavy Bolt Rifle (which is Rapid Fire, btw) from the Executioner Bolt Rifle from the Instigator Bolt Funnel from the Stalker Bolt Lathe from the Reverse Bolt Cowgirl from the...


I may have thrown up in my mouth on reading that. Just a little.

That's absolutely ridiculous.

The only logical explanation for that sort of nonsense is to be able to selectively nerf/buff Space Marines but not other imperial factions whenever a new edition rolls around.

Still pretty silly. I wonder when they're going to start differentiating between factions of space marines. Hellstorm Heavy Bolter? Nah, space wolves use the Wolfstorm Heavy Bolter! The Stormfang Carbine!!


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 03:26:05


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Stormfang Carbine does actually sound pretty cool. That'd make a good Relic weapon.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 03:31:16


Post by: Voss


 CEO Kasen wrote:
 Vaktathi wrote:
 vipoid wrote:

I'd heard that the AdMech book was looking really overpowered so I took a glance at the leaks, just out of curiosity.

My first impression was that they might as well have been written in another language for all I could discern from them. It's not just the layered rules, it's that so many rules have stupidly verbose names that make them completely unintuitive for someone trying to get to grips with an unfamiliar army.
This, 200,000% this.

The single biggest thing at this point, now that gaming venues are back open, keeping me from hopping back in, is trying to discern what the everloving hell all these new units are. Opening a book and getting faceblasted by an angry gorilla with a fully automatic thesaurus that adjectivizes 3,000 words a minute is not fun. If I can't tell an Intercessor from an Interceptor from an Inceptor, I'm going to stop caring real quick.



Ooh, ooh, let's not forget that the supposedly 'newbie friendly' 'easy to use' Space Marine army now basically has no two Primaris units with the same weapons, so now instead of "Boltgun, Bolt Pistol, Storm Bolter and Heavy Bolter" we have to differentiate the Bolt Carbine from the Auto Bolt Rifle from the Storm Bolter from the Hellstorm Bolt Rifle from the Hellstorm Heavy Bolter from the Heavy Bolt Rifle (which is Rapid Fire, btw) from the Executioner Bolt Rifle from the Instigator Bolt Funnel from the Stalker Bolt Lathe from the Reverse Bolt Cowgirl from the...


While all this is definitely bad, my favorite aspect of this and the rules writing is the combined nonsense that leads to the last paragraph of Bolter Discipline:
"For the purposes of this ability, a Rapid Fire bolt weapon is any bolt weapon (defined on page 195) with the Rapid Fire type"

Restating what has just been stated in a different order is _not_ good rules writing. Its merely redundant. Adding a cross reference is awful, particularly since page 195 is basically 'It has the word 'bolt' in it' (which is _again_ restating what was already said, but now on another page), except {list} but also includes {list of unique weapons}.

Just... let marines shoot twice with their default rapid fire bolters. 100% of the time. Easy, done. No bizarre list of conditionals but only for certain unit types, and no laundry list of what is or isn't and has other parts (combi-weapons) or what have you. Marine bolters shoot twice, forever.

Alternately, don't give them a pile of exceptions from the basic rules of the game, but that's a different discussion.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 03:35:15


Post by: Da Dez-Urt Groxx


I dunno I have recently returned after a long hiatus of at least 15yrs, I am having more fun than I once did playing 40K. Simply remember much frustration and little support for anything that was not a Space Marine Chapter.

It may just simply be that I am now playing Orks and enjoying all the modeling and simplistic approach. Also, seem to have a much better success rate than my old Eldar and CSM.

While I can’t comment on the recent editions, there is no nostalgia for the good old days here. They were tough times for the Xenos and Chosen of the Gods.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 03:45:24


Post by: Sim-Life


To be honest aside from the bolters I wouldn't mind this stuff if GW actually used the bespoke rules they've introduced as a way to balance the game. I get WHY they gave all these same abilities different names because again, its something I defended in 8th and have since come to dislike. The granularity in the rules COULD have been used to spot balance rules. For example if you have a unit that is underpreforming you just tweak its own little rule while the rest of the units that have that ruler remain uneffected.

THIS IS A HYPOTHETICAL AN NOT REPRESENTITIVE OF THE CURRENT GAME. Say you have terminators and genestealers both with their own deep strike rule. But genestealers tend to get shot to death because they fail the charge so no one takes them. You can modify the genestealer rule for deep striking so that they can come in closer to the enemy and fulfill their role while the terminators (and every other deep striking unit in the game) remains untouched so theres no need to worry about unintended consequences elsewhere.

It WOULD be a good way to surgically balance the game over time, but for some reason GW just refuses to change special rules outside of codex editions which come too fast to actually achieve any balance.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 03:54:24


Post by: H.B.M.C.


You can do that without the need for bespoke rules though.

Using your good Termy/'Stealer example, say rather than having two slightly different Deep Strike rules you had a single Deep Strike rule:

Deep Strike (X)

And "X" is the minimum inches away that the unit must be deployed. Most things would have Deep Strike (9), but some things, like super-sneaky Genestealers or appear-out-of-the-shadows Mandrakes could have Deep Strike (5), or something like that.

A single rule that allows variance within itself. It's built in.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 04:12:53


Post by: Hellebore


Voss wrote:
 CEO Kasen wrote:
 Vaktathi wrote:
 vipoid wrote:

I'd heard that the AdMech book was looking really overpowered so I took a glance at the leaks, just out of curiosity.

My first impression was that they might as well have been written in another language for all I could discern from them. It's not just the layered rules, it's that so many rules have stupidly verbose names that make them completely unintuitive for someone trying to get to grips with an unfamiliar army.
This, 200,000% this.

The single biggest thing at this point, now that gaming venues are back open, keeping me from hopping back in, is trying to discern what the everloving hell all these new units are. Opening a book and getting faceblasted by an angry gorilla with a fully automatic thesaurus that adjectivizes 3,000 words a minute is not fun. If I can't tell an Intercessor from an Interceptor from an Inceptor, I'm going to stop caring real quick.



Ooh, ooh, let's not forget that the supposedly 'newbie friendly' 'easy to use' Space Marine army now basically has no two Primaris units with the same weapons, so now instead of "Boltgun, Bolt Pistol, Storm Bolter and Heavy Bolter" we have to differentiate the Bolt Carbine from the Auto Bolt Rifle from the Storm Bolter from the Hellstorm Bolt Rifle from the Hellstorm Heavy Bolter from the Heavy Bolt Rifle (which is Rapid Fire, btw) from the Executioner Bolt Rifle from the Instigator Bolt Funnel from the Stalker Bolt Lathe from the Reverse Bolt Cowgirl from the...


While all this is definitely bad, my favorite aspect of this and the rules writing is the combined nonsense that leads to the last paragraph of Bolter Discipline:
"For the purposes of this ability, a Rapid Fire bolt weapon is any bolt weapon (defined on page 195) with the Rapid Fire type"

Restating what has just been stated in a different order is _not_ good rules writing. Its merely redundant. Adding a cross reference is awful, particularly since page 195 is basically 'It has the word 'bolt' in it' (which is _again_ restating what was already said, but now on another page), except {list} but also includes {list of unique weapons}.

Just... let marines shoot twice with their default rapid fire bolters. 100% of the time. Easy, done. No bizarre list of conditionals but only for certain unit types, and no laundry list of what is or isn't and has other parts (combi-weapons) or what have you. Marine bolters shoot twice, forever.

Alternately, don't give them a pile of exceptions from the basic rules of the game, but that's a different discussion.



ironically, even GW couldn't get around having to use a USR to define what another rule applies to....


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 05:48:03


Post by: Karol


 Daedalus81 wrote:


Don't stress taking it all in at once. Play and learn as you go. There's no shame in forgetting things or learning new tricks along the way.


yeah only to play , you need to buy, paint and assemble the units first. kind of a unfun to find out you armed your dudes the wrong way after you did all of that.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 06:04:11


Post by: Crispy78


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You can do that without the need for bespoke rules though.

Using your good Termy/'Stealer example, say rather than having two slightly different Deep Strike rules you had a single Deep Strike rule:

Deep Strike (X)

And "X" is the minimum inches away that the unit must be deployed. Most things would have Deep Strike (9), but some things, like super-sneaky Genestealers or appear-out-of-the-shadows Mandrakes could have Deep Strike (5), or something like that.

A single rule that allows variance within itself. It's built in.


Think this was mentioned further up. You could maintain the individual flavour still by giving different names but still calling out the same USR, e.g.

Genestealers - "They're Coming Out Of The Goddamn Walls" - unit has Deep Strike (5)
Mandrakes - "Strike From The Shadows" - unit has Deep Strike (5)

I think the fact that most people who played the editions with USRs still refer to those abilities by the USR names shows how useful they are. It absolutely eases the rules burden. My son has only played since 8th, and had no idea that things like Deep Strike, Feel No Pain, Objective Secured and so on were effectively still USRs but have just been given a different name each time they appear.

My big criticism of 9th edition would be that it seems to assume prior knowledge of previous editions like that. The codexes are massively disappointing from a fluff perspective in that respect. Looking back at my 6th edition CSM codex, each unit had a full page of text explaining the unit in the lore. That just doesn't exist any more, it just seems to be assumed knowledge that you've already read in previous editions. Nowadays you just get a little side box with barely a sentence in it. Before, the Heldrake entry went into all the details of how they are formed from a mutated and daemon-infused space marine fighter ship, and deep within it's core there is still a shrivelled husk of a pilot, whose cries of anguish are amplified and blared out as the screams of the monster he has become. I eagerly await the 9th edition version with a little blink-and-you'll-miss-it text box saying "dragon dinobot LOL"...


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 06:07:24


Post by: H.B.M.C.


One thing they could stand to do would be to codify Overcharge as well.

Overcharge (X) - When making an attack, an unmodified To Hit roll equal to X (or lower) results in 1 Mortal Wound on the wielder.

Stops us having some plasma weapons that insta-kill you, others that don't, and some that do but also kill vehicles in one hit because GW didn't think it through. Also allows for variance ("X") so you can show extra volatile things without needing to introduce special rules on top of special rules.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 06:21:13


Post by: Blastaar


drbored wrote:
GW's new language style is an attempt of them trying to give players what they think players want.

Players keep complaining about balance, not enough uniqueness in an army, they complain about rules with bad loopholes.

What do you get when you try to close loopholes? You get Legalese, and the rules are starting to sound more and more like Legalese. A lot of legalese begins with a layout of Definitions. In 40k, these definitions are made by giving things keywords.

But then, this is one of those 'careful what you wish for' situations. All through 5th-7th, people begged for more FAQ's, better balance, more unique rules to make the armies feel distinguished... And this is how they're trying to satisfy all of that.


Legalese isn't necessary for clear rules. Magic: The Gathering card text is clear and concise.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 07:34:56


Post by: Jidmah


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I'm all for being thorough and unambiguous with rules, but do they need to repeat the phrase "Once that phase, when resolving an attack made with a ranged weapon by a model from that unit..." three times in the same paragraph?


Have you ever participated in any discussion on YMDC?

So the simple answer is "yes, they do".

Formatting it in a little box to make it harder to read though...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blastaar wrote:
Legalese isn't necessary for clear rules. Magic: The Gathering card text is clear and concise.


The big difference between 40k and MtG is that MtG has created a human readable "code" for their rules that dictates how each rule has to be written, with the grammar and each word defined.
During 8th and 9th GW has improved their rules writing by a lot, but currently they are only up to the standards that WotC was already applying during onslaught 20 years ago. There still is lots of room to improve.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/03/18 11:40:42


Post by: NinthMusketeer


In YMDC people can argue something well beyond the point of common sense, when in real life the other players would have walked away long before. The rules absolutely do not need to be written like that, people just need to be less tolerant of TFGs' bull.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 08:14:40


Post by: Sim-Life


 Jidmah wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blastaar wrote:
Legalese isn't necessary for clear rules. Magic: The Gathering card text is clear and concise.


The big difference between 40k and MtG is that MtG has created a human readable "code" for their rules that dictates how each rule has to be written, with the grammar and each word defined.
During 8th and 9th GW has improved their rules writing by a lot, but currently they are only up to the standards that WotC was already applying during onslaught 20 years ago. There still is lots of room to improve.


And this is why I don't understand why people defend GW. They are the biggest name in tabletop wargames by an ENORMOUS margin since X-Wing and Privateer Press gak the bed, not to mention they have nearly 40 years making successive iterations of the basically the same ruleset, yet they've only rarely hired anyone competant at writing rules and it was probably more through luck than intention. This is especially egregious in the last 10 years or so as many games have an insanely good quality of rules, so it's not like competent designers are hard to find. Compared to the money they're making these days I doubt it would be much of an imposition for GW to drive a dump truck full of money up to Eric Lang's house and put him in charge of overhauling 40k to be what GW wants it to be. Lang especially is amazing at designing simple, streamlined rule sets that would work perfectly for 40k. Then there's numerous other designers kick about they could hire. But they instead recruit GW managers who think that because they've been glorified babysitters for twenty years they know how to write a codex. There's no excuse for 40k to be in the state it's in given the circumstances.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 08:15:58


Post by: NinthMusketeer


They have plenty of good rules writers. They work on AoS.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 08:24:12


Post by: kirotheavenger


If there's one thing GW has proven, it's that they don't need good rules to sell.
As long as the rules as passable, people will flock towards them for a number of different reasons.

So why would GW throw a truck load of money at a rules designer when they can throw it at senior management instead?


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 09:01:37


Post by: Jidmah


 Sim-Life wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blastaar wrote:
Legalese isn't necessary for clear rules. Magic: The Gathering card text is clear and concise.


The big difference between 40k and MtG is that MtG has created a human readable "code" for their rules that dictates how each rule has to be written, with the grammar and each word defined.
During 8th and 9th GW has improved their rules writing by a lot, but currently they are only up to the standards that WotC was already applying during onslaught 20 years ago. There still is lots of room to improve.


And this is why I don't understand why people defend GW. They are the biggest name in tabletop wargames by an ENORMOUS margin since X-Wing and Privateer Press gak the bed, not to mention they have nearly 40 years making successive iterations of the basically the same ruleset, yet they've only rarely hired anyone competant at writing rules and it was probably more through luck than intention. This is especially egregious in the last 10 years or so as many games have an insanely good quality of rules, so it's not like competent designers are hard to find. Compared to the money they're making these days I doubt it would be much of an imposition for GW to drive a dump truck full of money up to Eric Lang's house and put him in charge of overhauling 40k to be what GW wants it to be. Lang especially is amazing at designing simple, streamlined rule sets that would work perfectly for 40k. Then there's numerous other designers kick about they could hire. But they instead recruit GW managers who think that because they've been glorified babysitters for twenty years they know how to write a codex. There's no excuse for 40k to be in the state it's in given the circumstances.


Considering the viral tweets about rules writer's salary, IMO this seems to be a "pay peanuts, get monkeys" problem.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 09:15:12


Post by: Skinnereal


 kirotheavenger wrote:
If there's one thing GW has proven, it's that they don't need good rules to sell.
As long as the rules as passable, people will flock towards them for a number of different reasons.

So why would GW throw a truck load of money at a rules designer when they can throw it at senior management instead?
Just think how many gamers might go back to 40k if the rules were as solid as other games manage to be.
All of that translates into more money.
GW's penny-pinching at the rules level is hurting them.
The constant churn of rules is hurting the players, too, with the need to rebuy rule books and codexes, and the annual paid-for rules updates in CA. If the rules were better, we'd spend more on models instead. Surely, if the models are made in-house, they bring a higher profit than outsourced books.



40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 09:38:47


Post by: Sim-Life


 kirotheavenger wrote:
If there's one thing GW has proven, it's that they don't need good rules to sell.
As long as the rules as passable, people will flock towards them for a number of different reasons.

So why would GW throw a truck load of money at a rules designer when they can throw it at senior management instead?


Didn't work towards the end of Kirby's time when GW's annual reports were showing less and less profit every six months. Didn't X-Wing beat out 40k as the best selling game at one point? GW had a good few years after Rountree took over but the shine is fading and its become clear that GW is still GW and they'll be back to where they were soon enough if things don't change.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 09:40:55


Post by: Not Online!!!


 Skinnereal wrote:
 kirotheavenger wrote:
If there's one thing GW has proven, it's that they don't need good rules to sell.
As long as the rules as passable, people will flock towards them for a number of different reasons.

So why would GW throw a truck load of money at a rules designer when they can throw it at senior management instead?
Just think how many gamers might go back to 40k if the rules were as solid as other games manage to be.
All of that translates into more money.
GW's penny-pinching at the rules level is hurting them.
The constant churn of rules is hurting the players, too, with the need to rebuy rule books and codexes, and the annual paid-for rules updates in CA. If the rules were better, we'd spend more on models instead. Surely, if the models are made in-house, they bring a higher profit than outsourced books.



The Rules churn is mandated. Its baseline a DLC type deal like with the modern videogames industry... which btw absolutely sucks for the consumer.
that would of course be less bad if the additional content were actually good, and here we go torwards the pay problem, in which GW just seems to attempt to live with the "culture" of passion instead of actually bothering to pay a decent wage, which of course leads to burn outs and loss of experienced personell.

NVM that we know that the Bookkeepers intervene on occaision directly into design, cue wraithknight incident.

Combine these two things and you get either the motivated ruleswriter that wants to do good but has too little ressources and needs to worry about his living standard which gets desilusioned and therefore thinks to himself why should he or she or whatever else go the extra mile for the company that pays so badly in the first place. this leads to bad rules quality mid term guaranteed, which of course doesn't make them look good for the community.

then on the model front, i think, we are at a point were a lot of the players just put stuff in the cart and then put it out again simply because of price.
I remember a time, where even little student me could walk into a FLGS locally, see a nice mini or kit, buy it without a dex and just build and paint them and put em in a box or show em off or gift them to a new player. Nowadays? Not so much. (for the record, £--> CHF wonder exchange rate is baseline and was baseline just as nuts as the AUS side of things with the only saving grace that the average swiss collector has more spare money to throw at a hobby...)

And of course the usual explanations for the price get touted, like high quality and modularity and options. But with the ever increasing monoposing and lack of options (or even lack of baseline equipment cue CSM and especially CSM terminators) that just doesn't work anymore on multiple levels.

Sure,we are not yet at the p2w situation we had in 7th with formations with such abismal rules. But the buisness modell is the same, the rules piecemeal is the same. BCB , think of him what you want, made a list of all the doccuments, of which basically 2/3rds were monetised and reached over 100 differing rules sources for 8th edition.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 09:51:04


Post by: kirotheavenger


Good rules would require sacrifices from GW.

I think the majority of 40k players value cool unique rules over good rules.
"I get +1 to wound if it's a saturday afternoon and the sun is in the west, cool!", bonus points if they need to buy another book to access that rule.

Whenever you suggest 40k should be streamlined it's generally met by normal players with scorn "but that'd make me too similar to <very similar unit>!" as if that alone torpedos the idea.

People like straws, and they're not willing to give any up even as the camel begins to buckle.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 06:17:20


Post by: Goose LeChance


Don't forget that well designed rules are antithetical to GWs business model of churning out rules to fix other rules, in order to sell more models, and more rules.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 11:34:14


Post by: PenitentJake


 The Red Hobbit wrote:
That's a great example, D&D 3.X has the relatively lightweight d20 core mechanic but every indidivudal character, NPC or Monster can just be completely buried in the endless amount of options between skill, feats, (prestige-)class features, templates, etc. that it's just a giant pain to deal with when running a game. Not so bad if you're a player with only one character to worry about it.

Applying that to 40k, it's okay to have layers upon layers of rules if you're a Custodes or other ultra expensive ppm army. But for everyone else there's just a headache of rules to have to remember.

Also, agree with Vipoid. It is astonishing to me that you can release a new edition then tell people to wait 1-2 years for their army to get an update. I can't think of any other game company who gets a pass like that.


That's why, for me 3.5 was the best D&D ever. I loved feats and prestige classes. I loved that the open gaming licence gave me hundreds of supplements to choose from- D20 Rokugan!

Simple to me is flavourless and boring. I hate the way skills don't mean jack in D&D 5.0. The game shouldn't even be called D&D- it should be called "Proficiency Bonus" because that's almost the only thing in the game that matter.

As for waiting 1-2 years for books, again, before 8th sometimes we'd go whole editions without getting a faction update- 2 years is nothing. Don't get me wrong, I hate edition churn too, and I think it's the biggest problem with the game. But I've seen people complain about this, and in the very next line, talk about what they want in 10th edition. The only way this doesn't happen is if we finally get a persistent edition.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 11:41:31


Post by: BertBert


Goose LeChance wrote:
Don't forget that well designed rules are antithetical to GWs business model of churning out rules to fix other rules, in order to sell more models, and more rules.


And thankfully we have this confirmed from a first-hand source now, too.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 11:45:23


Post by: the_scotsman


 The Red Hobbit wrote:
 xttz wrote:
 The Red Hobbit wrote:

Also, agree with Vipoid. It is astonishing to me that you can release a new edition then tell people to wait 1-2 years for their army to get an update. I can't think of any other game company who gets a pass like that.


What gets me is that CA17 came with a bunch of extra interim rules for factions without a codex. It was literally just a page each but it helped.
Why couldn't they do the same alongside the FAQs or CA21, adding faction-specific secondaries or upgrading army traits?


Yeah the only reason we don't get updated digital rules is because that would cut into $50 book sales. Good ol'greed.


50$ book sales that are produced for a quarter each and written by someone being paid less than the starting pay being advertised at the mcdonalds near my house.

there's been a post on reddit circulating from the guy who originally wrote the Titanicus rules (probably the best ruleset of any current GW game) talking about how much he got paid yearly as a lead rules writer. All I can say is...if I was getting paid that much, that's about the level of quality of work I'd put out too.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 11:45:25


Post by: vipoid


 H.B.M.C. wrote:

People bemoan USRs, but USRs would allow you to have all your fancy splashy silly named rules whilst keeping everything in a sensible order.

I mean imagine if there was a rule called "Accurate". This rule allowed you to re-roll to-hit rolls of 1.

Then you could have:

"Twisted Senses" - The unit has the Accurate USR.
"Master Tactician" - The unit has the Accurate USR.
"The Flan of Ages" - The unit has the Accurate USR.
"MASSIVE FEET!" - The unit has the Accurate USR.

It means you have one source of rules, requiring you to update only one thing (rather than tracking different variants/wordings of the rule across multiple units in multiple books), but you can keep the race-specific flavouring of rules so that it fits with the theme.


I agree in part but in most cases I'd just skip the first part altogether and simply give the unit Accurate.

The reason I suggest this is that I don't think every single USR needs to be given a different name for each unit its put on. The reason I used 'reroll 1s to hit' as my example is not just because of how pervasive it is but also because of how unimpactful it is with regard to how a unit plays. A unit with a 36" gun will play differently from a unit with a 12" gun. A unit that can Deep Strike will play differently from one that can't (or at least has the option of doing so). A unit that freely fall back from melee will play differently from one that can't. However, a unit that rerolls 1s will play exactly the same as one that doesn't reroll 1s because rerolling 1s changes nothing. If the unit was melee before it rerolled 1s, it will still be melee when it rerolls 1s. If a unit deep struck before rerolling 1s, it will still deep strike when it rerolls 1s. etc.

What I'm trying to get at is that not every ability a unit has needs to be a defining part of its fluff, if that makes sense. Hence, I'd actually far rather just see USRs use their standard names and save the unique names for abilities that are more unit-defining, if that makes sense.


drbored wrote:
GW's new language style is an attempt of them trying to give players what they think players want.

Players keep complaining about balance, not enough uniqueness in an army, they complain about rules with bad loopholes.

What do you get when you try to close loopholes? You get Legalese, and the rules are starting to sound more and more like Legalese. A lot of legalese begins with a layout of Definitions. In 40k, these definitions are made by giving things keywords.


I keep hearing this but then I look to other companies and game systems and see plenty of rules that manage to be clear and concise without ever needing to resort to a wall of legalese.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 11:47:37


Post by: the_scotsman


 kirotheavenger wrote:
Good rules would require sacrifices from GW.

I think the majority of 40k players value cool unique rules over good rules.


If you want to prove this 1000% correct to yourself, try getting a group of 40k players to try out Apocalypse!

"....b-but I don't get my army-wide rerolls or to stand still and shoot at full range or my stratagem, my favorite stratagem that makes my unit shoot nine times with rerolls to hit and wound, or my doctrines that make my weapons stronger or my super-doctrine that gives all my intercessors Fly and 20" movement or my..."


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 11:53:31


Post by: Sim-Life


 kirotheavenger wrote:
Good rules would require sacrifices from GW.

I think the majority of 40k players value cool unique rules over good rules.
"I get +1 to wound if it's a saturday afternoon and the sun is in the west, cool!", bonus points if they need to buy another book to access that rule.

Whenever you suggest 40k should be streamlined it's generally met by normal players with scorn "but that'd make me too similar to <very similar unit>!" as if that alone torpedos the idea.

People like straws, and they're not willing to give any up even as the camel begins to buckle.


40k has been streamlined since 8th. Its the surrounding rules in codexes and supplements that have added complications and bloat. You can have streamlined asymmetrical games. Plenty of games have done it at this point.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 11:58:13


Post by: kirotheavenger


I'd agree that USRs don't need unique names at all.
This would be even less relevant if every unit had a blurb/fluff text.
That way you'd know from the blurb that they have twisted senses and logically extrapolate that that's where Accurate comes from.

Why not just give them +1 BS? They'd be more accurate, but his way there's no rerolls needed!
Granted this depends on the system you're using, +1 might not work mechanically or be too much.

The reason we have reroll 1s is because GW wanted a special rule they can throw out that gave on a small buff. That way they could throw it around everywhere and let everyone feel all fluffy and warm because they're special and get to dab on their opponent as they reroll those 1s.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Sim-Life wrote:
 kirotheavenger wrote:
Good rules would require sacrifices from GW.

I think the majority of 40k players value cool unique rules over good rules.
"I get +1 to wound if it's a saturday afternoon and the sun is in the west, cool!", bonus points if they need to buy another book to access that rule.

Whenever you suggest 40k should be streamlined it's generally met by normal players with scorn "but that'd make me too similar to <very similar unit>!" as if that alone torpedos the idea.

People like straws, and they're not willing to give any up even as the camel begins to buckle.


40k has been streamlined since 8th. Its the surrounding rules in codexes and supplements that have added complications and bloat. You can have streamlined asymmetrical games. Plenty of games have done it at this point.

Define "40k".
The core rulebook has been streamlined. But they've pretty much only achieved that by carving out a lot of what used to be in the rulebook and dumping it as a spaghetti mess into codexes.
I consider 40k as the whole system, including the codexes.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 12:41:13


Post by: PenitentJake


USRs would be fine with me, as long as the full text of every one of them appeared on the unit's datacard, because cross reference between multiple books sucks; this is why I hated previous implementations of USRs- the data card would tell you which ones they had... And that's it. Fix that, and I'm all on board for USRs.




40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 12:58:29


Post by: Not Online!!!


PenitentJake wrote:
USRs would be fine with me, as long as the full text of every one of them appeared on the unit's datacard, because cross reference between multiple books sucks; this is why I hated previous implementations of USRs- the data card would tell you which ones they had... And that's it. Fix that, and I'm all on board for USRs.




accross books isn't needed, it'd be just good enough to have a section for all the USR's used by the army in the actual codex. Indeed summary pages would do greatly and cut down on nonsense.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 13:03:50


Post by: kirotheavenger


Star Wars Legion has a great approach to USRs.

Most are "Mcjiggy X" meaning there's flexibility within the rule for different values.
Nothing like "Shrouded" and "Stealth" or even "Shrouded AND Stealth" like 7th had.

Secondly, on every unit's datacard* they have reminder text. This is a brief synposis of the rule. It won't satisfy the rules lawyers but it's good enough 90% of the time.
*units with lots of rules don't have space for all the reminder text, and instead just list the complex/rare ones.

Thirdly, the full 'legalese' definition of the rules are contained in the Rules Reference Guide. When in doubt about a rule, check the RRG!
The RRG is a free online PDF, regularly updated and each entry has useful hyperlinks to take you to similar entries you may need.
Reading the rule about Pinning? There will be a link to Shooting and Morale at the end for example.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 13:07:28


Post by: Sim-Life


Not Online!!! wrote:
PenitentJake wrote:
USRs would be fine with me, as long as the full text of every one of them appeared on the unit's datacard, because cross reference between multiple books sucks; this is why I hated previous implementations of USRs- the data card would tell you which ones they had... And that's it. Fix that, and I'm all on board for USRs.




accross books isn't needed, it'd be just good enough to have a section for all the USR's used by the army in the actual codex. Indeed summary pages would do greatly and cut down on nonsense.


GW removed summary pages though.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 13:10:40


Post by: Not Online!!!


 Sim-Life wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
PenitentJake wrote:
USRs would be fine with me, as long as the full text of every one of them appeared on the unit's datacard, because cross reference between multiple books sucks; this is why I hated previous implementations of USRs- the data card would tell you which ones they had... And that's it. Fix that, and I'm all on board for USRs.




accross books isn't needed, it'd be just good enough to have a section for all the USR's used by the army in the actual codex. Indeed summary pages would do greatly and cut down on nonsense.


GW removed summary pages though.


sure, however noone ever said that gw is competent or even interested in balance.

I think the discussion about the pay of the rulesdepartment have shown that pretty extensively.. as has the wraithknight nonsense.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 13:10:48


Post by: Gert


The summary pages are still there chief. The final page in the SM Codex is a reference page for special rules like Bolter Discipline and ATSKNF.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 13:12:07


Post by: Ordana


 vipoid wrote:

"Acute Reflexes" - This unit rerolls to-hit rolls of 1.
"Twisted Senses" - This unit rerolls to-hit rolls of 1.
"Master Tactician" - This unit rerolls to-hit rolls of 1.
"Unrivalled Duellist" - This unit rerolls to-hit rolls of 1.
"Chosen of the God Emperor" - This unit rerolls to-hit rolls of 1.
"EMPOWERED BY THE DAEMON LORD DRAKHOSTVXH, DREAD RULER OF THE NIGHTMARE LABARYNTH OF CHAOS" - This unit rerolls to-hit rolls of 1.
Reminds me of the 5? or was it 6 edition Blood Angel codex where everything was just given Blood before it.
Blood Missiles on aircraft.
Dreadnoughts with Blood Fists that then simply read 'see Dreadnough CCW' in the rules.
Why the F not simply call it a DCCW.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 13:27:39


Post by: kirotheavenger


I don't think any unit had a DCCW in 5th ed, even Dreadnoughts have "Dreadnought Powerfist: See DCCW".

My favourite was the Dreadknight, whose sword counted as a DCCW. Except it couldn't use it since it wasn't a walker! Seems pretty clear it was a walker until the last moment.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 13:45:56


Post by: VladimirHerzog


USRs would be so easy to implement in a smart waym just put this on the datasheet and at the end of every codex and the core rulebook:

Accurate - This unit rerolls to-hit rolls of 1.

You also need to make sure that there is no nested rules

that way you see "Accurate" and know what it does through repetition and for the times you don't know the USR, its written out on the datasheet.
Same thing as keywords in MTG, you get reminders (on commons) to tell you what the keyword does, that way you learn them all just by playing the game without needing to refer to the rulebook.

Then you can apply this to bolt weapons and give them the "Bolter" keyword for example.
Or give "Flamer" and "Melta" to every variant of these weapons and the Avatar of khaine could now just have a rule that "Ignores damage from Flamers and Meltas"


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 13:51:49


Post by: Daedalus81


Karol wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:


Don't stress taking it all in at once. Play and learn as you go. There's no shame in forgetting things or learning new tricks along the way.


yeah only to play , you need to buy, paint and assemble the units first. kind of a unfun to find out you armed your dudes the wrong way after you did all of that.


1) Proxies
2) You don't actually need everything assembled and painted to play


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 13:59:45


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Karol wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:


Don't stress taking it all in at once. Play and learn as you go. There's no shame in forgetting things or learning new tricks along the way.


yeah only to play , you need to buy, paint and assemble the units first. kind of a unfun to find out you armed your dudes the wrong way after you did all of that.


1) Proxies
2) You don't actually need everything assembled and painted to play


You don't get it, if you play with proxies or unfinished models in Poland, the government comes and beats you up, steals your minis then put you in prison for the rest of your life


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 14:03:41


Post by: Tyran


 Skinnereal wrote:
Just think how many gamers might go back to 40k if the rules were as solid as other games manage to be.
All of that translates into more money.
GW's penny-pinching at the rules level is hurting them.
The constant churn of rules is hurting the players, too, with the need to rebuy rule books and codexes, and the annual paid-for rules updates in CA. If the rules were better, we'd spend more on models instead. Surely, if the models are made in-house, they bring a higher profit than outsourced books.


The latest GW box was sold out in mere seconds. Better rules wouldn't necessarily translate into more sales, because GW has pretty much tapped out their sales potential based on their current production.

Maybe if they go through another sales contraction like they did during 7th we will see better written rules, but at least for now GW doesn't really has an incentive for that.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 14:14:08


Post by: Sim-Life


 Tyran wrote:
 Skinnereal wrote:
Just think how many gamers might go back to 40k if the rules were as solid as other games manage to be.
All of that translates into more money.
GW's penny-pinching at the rules level is hurting them.
The constant churn of rules is hurting the players, too, with the need to rebuy rule books and codexes, and the annual paid-for rules updates in CA. If the rules were better, we'd spend more on models instead. Surely, if the models are made in-house, they bring a higher profit than outsourced books.


Better rules wouldn't necessarily translate into more sales

Yes it would.

Just for myself I have like 7 armies in 40k and 4 for WHFB and haven't bought anything in years. When I was really into 40k/WHFB during 6th/8th I'd buy basically anything for an army just cause I could. I would get my pay and pick up stuff I didn't need just on the off chance I might use it some day. Sometimes I'd start new armies on a whim because some art inspired me. Now I don't buy anything at all because the rules are poopy and I know I'm not the only vet like this.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 14:25:53


Post by: PenitentJake


 Sim-Life wrote:
 Tyran wrote:
 Skinnereal wrote:
Just think how many gamers might go back to 40k if the rules were as solid as other games manage to be.
All of that translates into more money.
GW's penny-pinching at the rules level is hurting them.
The constant churn of rules is hurting the players, too, with the need to rebuy rule books and codexes, and the annual paid-for rules updates in CA. If the rules were better, we'd spend more on models instead. Surely, if the models are made in-house, they bring a higher profit than outsourced books.


Better rules wouldn't necessarily translate into more sales

Yes it would.

Just for myself I have like 7 armies in 40k and 4 for WHFB and haven't bought anything in years. When I was really into 40k/WHFB during 6th/8th I'd buy basically anything for an army just cause I could. I would get my pay and pick up stuff I didn't need just on the off chance I might use it some day. Sometimes I'd start new armies on a whim because some art inspired me. Now I don't buy anything at all because the rules are poopy and I know I'm not the only vet like this.


Better rules might make more people want to buy, I agree. I think Tyran's point was that since you can't actually sell more copies than "Every copy printed", nothing can increase sales until production is also increased. Good news: the latest GW report said they were looking to add 13 new moulding machines, so production should be ramping back up again... Unless a variant spike causes another UK lock down and they can't let enough people into the factories to run all of the machines at once.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 14:33:24


Post by: Grimtuff


PenitentJake wrote:
USRs would be fine with me, as long as the full text of every one of them appeared on the unit's datacard, because cross reference between multiple books sucks; this is why I hated previous implementations of USRs- the data card would tell you which ones they had... And that's it. Fix that, and I'm all on board for USRs.




Because that doesn't happen in current 40k at all. Nope...

Just do it like WMH did theirs. USRs are all tied to select symbols, which are super easy to memorise as there are only a couple of dozen or so.

Let's look at an example:



Now, you can see from that card, if you know what the symbols mean he has Combined Melee Attack, Officer, Pathfinder and Stealth. His weapons are also both Blessed.

Another one that looks super complex but isn't at all:



So, we can see she has Advance Deployment, Assault, Pathfinder and Stealth. Her weapons are all Blessed, Magical and have Disruption. She is also a Weapon Master on her CCWs.

Then on the back of the cards you have any rules that are unique to the model and/or grant USRs when certain conditions are met, such as the rule Prowl, which grants Stealth to a model when they have the benefit of concealment.

This is the best way to do it IMO, especially when coupled with the app, so if you forget what it does you can click on it and it takes you to the relevant rulebook page embedded within said app. No extra text, no needless reprinting of the same rule over and over. This works and works well. I often why of all the things GW chose to pilfer from other systems they never swiped that...


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 14:38:43


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 Grimtuff wrote:

Spoiler:

Because that doesn't happen in current 40k at all. Nope...

Just do it like WMH did theirs. USRs are all tied to select symbols, which are super easy to memorise as there are only a couple of dozen or so.

Let's look at an example:



Now, you can see from that card, if you know what the symbols mean he has Combined Melee Attack, Officer, Pathfinder and Stealth. His weapons are also both Blessed.

Another one that looks super complex but isn't at all:



So, we can see she has Advance Deployment, Assault, Pathfinder and Stealth. Her weapons are all Blessed, Magical and have Disruption. She is also a Weapon Master on her CCWs.

Then on the back of the cards you have any rules that are unique to the model and/or grant USRs when certain conditions are met, such as the rule Prowl, which grants Stealth to a model when they have the benefit of concealment.

This is the best way to do it IMO, especially when coupled with the app, so if you forget what it does you can click on it and it takes you to the relevant rulebook page embedded within said app. No extra text, no needless reprinting of the same rule over and over. This works and works well. I often why of all the things GW chose to pilfer from other systems they never swiped that...


I disagree on that approach for the simple reason that not everyone uses the app so learning the symbols would be pretty tedious. Once you know them, its for sure a good system tho


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 14:46:46


Post by: oni


9th edition has largely paralleled 5th edition in that the Core Rules are good, but the codexes have fethed up the whole thing. Also it doesn't help any that the 9th edition missions are absolute garbage.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 15:16:57


Post by: PenitentJake


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 Grimtuff wrote:

Spoiler:

Because that doesn't happen in current 40k at all. Nope...

Just do it like WMH did theirs. USRs are all tied to select symbols, which are super easy to memorise as there are only a couple of dozen or so.

Let's look at an example:



Now, you can see from that card, if you know what the symbols mean he has Combined Melee Attack, Officer, Pathfinder and Stealth. His weapons are also both Blessed.

Another one that looks super complex but isn't at all:



So, we can see she has Advance Deployment, Assault, Pathfinder and Stealth. Her weapons are all Blessed, Magical and have Disruption. She is also a Weapon Master on her CCWs.

Then on the back of the cards you have any rules that are unique to the model and/or grant USRs when certain conditions are met, such as the rule Prowl, which grants Stealth to a model when they have the benefit of concealment.

This is the best way to do it IMO, especially when coupled with the app, so if you forget what it does you can click on it and it takes you to the relevant rulebook page embedded within said app. No extra text, no needless reprinting of the same rule over and over. This works and works well. I often why of all the things GW chose to pilfer from other systems they never swiped that...


I disagree on that approach for the simple reason that not everyone uses the app so learning the symbols would be pretty tedious. Once you know them, its for sure a good system tho


I'm with Vlad. I hate apps and app culture. I like computers and books. I think phones should be used for phoning people.

Don't get me wrong; making things available on the phone is great for people who like that sort of thing. More options is always better than fewer options (from my perspective- I know that some people get paralyzed when they have too many options). But there's a difference between making something available on a phone app and replacing non-phone options with the phone app.

And personally, I hate the "replace words with icons" thing too. I get it; it's great for folks with language or cognitive barriers, I just personally don't like it. I'll take a datacard with all relevant rules text printed on it in words any day of the week. You can call all identical rules by the same name and print the full list in the rulebook too if you want; you can put them on a phone too if you want; you can add symbols so that you don't have to read the rules if you don't want to; you can also put them on a summary page in each dex if you want. None of these extras changes the fact the I still want all relevant rules written on the datacard, because that's the system that I prefer to use. Heck, I think points costs and all weapon stats should be on datacards too- cross referencing a unit's data card for it's rules, the weapons list for a weapon profile and the points list for its points is also IMHO stupid unnecessary cross referencing when ALL of that crap could fit on a datacard. Again, you can keep the separate lists for those who like it that way AND add the stuff to the datacard for those who don't.

Solutions where you get what you want AND I get what I want are always the best solutions. This is why I disagree with the premise of this thread- I feel like three ways to play and four supported game sizes are "Everyone Wins" solutions that go above and beyond the stuff that existed in previous editions. My only complaint with the game in it's current state is that I have no reason to believe there won't be a 10th edition, where everything is reset so we have to go through the same crap all over again.

I like 9th a lot. It's my favourite edition so far. But I would be happier with any edition that is permanent and persistent, because I genuinely believe that every problem in this game is not the result of a given ruleset- it's the fact that every rules set comes with a lifespan, and once it expires, you're always stuck in a ridiculous "This faction has its new book, that faction doesn't" cycle.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 15:39:30


Post by: Grimtuff


You're focussing too much on the app part. I mentioned that as a counter to the "multiple sources" (which frankly is a load of hogwash, Nowhere in god-know how many years have the rules been in one place for any major system. You're gonna have a bad time if you want to find a game with everything in one place...). PP used exactly the same system in Mk2 (and maybe Mk1. Can't remember off the top of my head), without an app in place for some time. They were easy to remember and intuitive.

The same can be said for the (original) Heroclix system. You could see simply by looking at a model's base what USRs they had based on the colour of the dial. Then they introduced white powers...
White powers made for more comic-accurate powers, so you could have more than one USR attached to a stat, you just referred back to the (newly introduced) mini's card, but it skewed the whole game. The whole point was you could look at a model's base and know exactly what they were capable of at a glance. In the newer system, you had to constantly refer back to the cards to see what bespoke rules they had. It made for more fluffy depictions, but it was overly complicated and a major departure from what the game began as.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 15:57:41


Post by: Racerguy180


VladimirHerzog wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Karol wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:


Don't stress taking it all in at once. Play and learn as you go. There's no shame in forgetting things or learning new tricks along the way.


yeah only to play , you need to buy, paint and assemble the units first. kind of a unfun to find out you armed your dudes the wrong way after you did all of that.


1) Proxies
2) You don't actually need everything assembled and painted to play


You don't get it, if you play with proxies or unfinished models in Poland, the government comes and beats you up, steals your minis then put you in prison for the rest of your life

Sounds preferable to playing in Karols meta!!!!


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 16:12:30


Post by: SemperMortis


Not to defend Karol, but if you play in tournaments they generally don't let you use proxies that often and if you don't have a 100% completely painted army you are automatically losing points.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 16:28:14


Post by: The Red Hobbit


PenitentJake wrote:
That's why, for me 3.5 was the best D&D ever. I loved feats and prestige classes. I loved that the open gaming licence gave me hundreds of supplements to choose from- D20 Rokugan!

I agree it's a great edition to be a player in as long as everyone has a grasp on the rules and character building and the social contract is upheld but it's horrid to be a DM. The amount of prep time in 3.X is remarkably higher than any other edition of the game when it comes to building enemy NPCs and Monsters.

d20 Rokugan was neat, but man was the Samurai class in Complete Warrior abominable.

As for waiting 1-2 years for books, again, before 8th sometimes we'd go whole editions without getting a faction update- 2 years is nothing. Don't get me wrong, I hate edition churn too, and I think it's the biggest problem with the game. But I've seen people complain about this, and in the very next line, talk about what they want in 10th edition. The only way this doesn't happen is if we finally get a persistent edition.

For sure, previously some factions would have the same codex for multiple editions. But there was less of a power creep disparity. That's not to say there was no power creep, but not a significant one with a clearly defined haves and have nots.

For instance 8.5 debuts doctrines to reward mono-faction armies and give an alternative to souping. The 9th codexes are giving this to every faction which is to be expected, the problem is you now need to wait your turn in order to free benefits from yet another layer of rules. I don't personally like doctrines / extra rules layers but I can't deny that it's a free upgrade 90% of the time.

I don't think saying "no more talk about 10th edition" will solve the problem. I think the problem can be easily solved if data sheets were available for free online and updated regularly. As I recall AoS and its war scrolls already do this with a pay for premium option.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 16:31:21


Post by: SemperMortis


 The Red Hobbit wrote:

For instance 8.5 debuts doctrines to reward mono-faction armies and give an alternative to souping. The 9th codexes are giving this to every faction which is to be expected, the problem is you now need to wait your turn in order to free benefits from yet another layer of rules. I don't personally like doctrines / extra rules layers but I can't deny that it's a free upgrade 90% of the time.


What is/are the Ork "Doctrines"? I know Marines got free buffs depending on what turn it was, but what did Orkz get?


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 16:33:48


Post by: Gert


SemperMortis wrote:
Not to defend Karol, but if you play in tournaments they generally don't let you use proxies that often and if you don't have a 100% completely painted army you are automatically losing points.

What beginner is taking a tournament as their first experience of 40k? That was the point being discussed.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 16:35:42


Post by: Tyran


 The Red Hobbit wrote:

For sure, previously some factions would have the same codex for multiple editions. But there was less of a power creep disparity.


*Looks at the 5th edition Tyranid Codex, then looks at the 5th edition IG codex (written by the same author to add salt to the wound)*
*Looks at the early 7th edition dexes, then looks at the 7th edition Necron codex*

Yeah I call BS on that, the power creep disparity was as bad if not worse.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 16:36:12


Post by: The Red Hobbit


SemperMortis wrote:

What is/are the Ork "Doctrines"? I know Marines got free buffs depending on what turn it was, but what did Orkz get?

You are correct, they are now the first 9th ed faction to not get a doctrine equivalent.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 16:59:31


Post by: the_scotsman


 The Red Hobbit wrote:
SemperMortis wrote:

What is/are the Ork "Doctrines"? I know Marines got free buffs depending on what turn it was, but what did Orkz get?

You are correct, they are now the first 9th ed faction to not get a doctrine equivalent.


Or custom subfactions. as is tradition, whenever GW decides "wooooah now, this is getting out of hand we gotta dial it back!!!" they have to do it with the ork codex, nid codex or CSM codex.

in a surprising break from tradition, they did not put out the Eldar codex before the dial-back, but they at least got Marines released into the world with seven layer bean dip rules misery first.

to be completely fair though: As strong as the drukhari codex is, you have to admit there is a HUGE incentive not to take any allies. Giving up PFP is a big freakin' deal for a lot of units.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 17:04:54


Post by: Karol


 Gert wrote:

What beginner is taking a tournament as their first experience of 40k? That was the point being discussed.


It doesn't have to be a tournament. The 10VP for painting is a basic rule. I said it before I would get the rule more if it was 1VP, a small entice to paint or bonus for a fully painted. But generally crucial in only the most 50/50 games, and I think in those the fully painted army winning is an okey thing to happen. 10VP is a whole secondary. When a new player with his 2000pts army gets told that he now either has to pay comission, learn to speed paint or he will have a huge handicap for the next 6+months, more depending on the force or if his army is finished and doesn't suddenly require an update, a lot of newer players lose interests in w40k. Some even don't start to play it, even guys twice my age, who could probably do afford having a commission done on their army.

Same with proxies. Now everyone here plays with at least parts for models that are recasts. In 4 years I have not seen a fully GW army being played. If the bit costs more then the GW original, like some of the monsters, people don't really care that much. But rhinos as razorbacks may work one time , and probably against a friend. After 1-2 games you are expected to go to Partisan and ask him to sell you those 3-4 towers for your rhinos.

But in general the only people I saw that started their 9th w40k trip with tournaments were old veteran players that quit in 8th or in prior edition. And by tournaments I mean big things, large then a single store community. In store events I have seen people use just bought 1700pts armies with stuff in reserves to be recycled when some of the units on the table die.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 the_scotsman wrote:


to be completely fair though: As strong as the drukhari codex is, you have to admit there is a HUGE incentive not to take any allies. Giving up PFP is a big freakin' deal for a lot of units.

Aren't CWE players still souping up DE and harlis, even after the liquifire changes? I think soup lists from them are still popular.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 17:09:03


Post by: The Red Hobbit


 the_scotsman wrote:

but they at least got Marines released into the world with seven layer bean dip rules misery first.

Hohohoho this had me cracking up.

to be completely fair though: As strong as the drukhari codex is, you have to admit there is a HUGE incentive not to take any allies. Giving up PFP is a big freakin' deal for a lot of units.

Oh definitely, I understand them wanting to give an incentive to use mono-faction, but there are too many layers of rules for my preferences.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 17:09:15


Post by: SemperMortis


 The Red Hobbit wrote:
SemperMortis wrote:

What is/are the Ork "Doctrines"? I know Marines got free buffs depending on what turn it was, but what did Orkz get?

You are correct, they are now the first 9th ed faction to not get a doctrine equivalent.


From how many obvious mistakes are in the book (Trukk Boyz can't use Trukkz), and how many errors are in the book, I feel like it was a rush job and that they either forgot it or conversely, removed it last minute to hopefully lower the power level. Games-Workshop ork playtesters don't exactly have the world best reputation for what actually works. I will never let reece forget "The Stompa is AMAZING!" .


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 17:11:32


Post by: catbarf


 Grimtuff wrote:
PenitentJake wrote:
USRs would be fine with me, as long as the full text of every one of them appeared on the unit's datacard, because cross reference between multiple books sucks; this is why I hated previous implementations of USRs- the data card would tell you which ones they had... And that's it. Fix that, and I'm all on board for USRs.




Because that doesn't happen in current 40k at all. Nope...

Just do it like WMH did theirs. USRs are all tied to select symbols, which are super easy to memorise as there are only a couple of dozen or so.

Let's look at an example:

(pics)


Another thing to point out with WMH's use of USRs is that things like Combined Attack, Officer, and Stealth are more straightforward as labels and concepts than obtusely-named USRs like Hammer of Wrath, It Will Not Die, or Relentless.

It didn't help that there were tons of similar-sounding or similar-functioning USRs- Rending and Shred did completely different things, and Wrecker and Armourbane are both flavors of 'kills vehicle better'.

A concise and restrained set of USRs designed to integrate into the core rules would be a lot better than the keyword soup it turned into or the 'everything is bespoke but not really' approach of today.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 17:12:41


Post by: Karol


 VladimirHerzog wrote:


You don't get it, if you play with proxies or unfinished models in Poland, the government comes and beats you up, steals your minis then put you in prison for the rest of your life

Funny. But you do get a handicap of 10VP which means your opponent just got a fourth extre secondary for your army being finished. It is like having a wrestling match with your opponent starting with 3 points on you. At some point playing such a game becomes not worth it. Especially if your opponent army or skill are much better then yours. Then you are practically playing for your opponent to have fun. And from my expiriance over long span of time it is not very fun. So no goverment needed.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 17:14:43


Post by: Gert


10 VP is not a huge handicap. Its out of 100 and you can easily gain enough points that it's nothing or you can simply not use the rule. Funnily enough when it's your game you don't have to use all the rules if you don't want them, if your opponent agrees.
*cue dumb arguments about removing the movement phase*


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 17:14:58


Post by: Gores


 the_scotsman wrote:
 The Red Hobbit wrote:
SemperMortis wrote:

What is/are the Ork "Doctrines"? I know Marines got free buffs depending on what turn it was, but what did Orkz get?

You are correct, they are now the first 9th ed faction to not get a doctrine equivalent.


Or custom subfactions. as is tradition, whenever GW decides "wooooah now, this is getting out of hand we gotta dial it back!!!" they have to do it with the ork codex, nid codex or CSM codex.

in a surprising break from tradition, they did not put out the Eldar codex before the dial-back, but they at least got Marines released into the world with seven layer bean dip rules misery first.

to be completely fair though: As strong as the drukhari codex is, you have to admit there is a HUGE incentive not to take any allies. Giving up PFP is a big freakin' deal for a lot of units.


It was actually DG who was the first to not get custom subfactions! And their "chapters" don't have traits, just a relic/contagion/strat, and at least IMO that faction is pretty good! Hopefully the power spikes of admech/DE are just outliers, which they seem to be, given the generally even level of DG/Sisters/Orks. On topic I personally am having a lot of fun with the game, the missions are the best they've ever been, all the 9th codexes are interesting, and with the community starting back up again I can finally get back to 3 tournaments a month. The slow ass release of the rules factions need (and the order they've been received) is my biggest complaint, but covid and brexit will do that, I guess


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 18:03:19


Post by: VladimirHerzog


SemperMortis wrote:
Not to defend Karol, but if you play in tournaments they generally don't let you use proxies that often and if you don't have a 100% completely painted army you are automatically losing points.


The conversation was about telling new players to just pick what they found cool and not worry about competitiveness


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote:


It doesn't have to be a tournament. The 10VP for painting is a basic rule. I said it before I would get the rule more if it was 1VP, a small entice to paint or bonus for a fully painted. But generally crucial in only the most 50/50 games, and I think in those the fully painted army winning is an okey thing to happen. 10VP is a whole secondary. When a new player with his 2000pts army gets told that he now either has to pay comission, learn to speed paint or he will have a huge handicap for the next 6+months, more depending on the force or if his army is finished and doesn't suddenly require an update, a lot of newer players lose interests in w40k. Some even don't start to play it, even guys twice my age, who could probably do afford having a commission done on their army.

Same with proxies. Now everyone here plays with at least parts for models that are recasts. In 4 years I have not seen a fully GW army being played. If the bit costs more then the GW original, like some of the monsters, people don't really care that much. But rhinos as razorbacks may work one time , and probably against a friend. After 1-2 games you are expected to go to Partisan and ask him to sell you those 3-4 towers for your rhinos.

But in general the only people I saw that started their 9th w40k trip with tournaments were old veteran players that quit in 8th or in prior edition. And by tournaments I mean big things, large then a single store community. In store events I have seen people use just bought 1700pts armies with stuff in reserves to be recycled when some of the units on the table die.



In every casual metas i've been a part of or heard of , nobody ever claimed the 10vps for a fully painted army (even if their army was fully painted). If youre playing with recasts but don't allow proxying, its pants on heads slowed.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 18:07:26


Post by: Gregor Samsa


Not showing extreme lenience for proxies and counts-as is also ridiculous, even (and especially) at a tournament standard.

Just mark the bases of units in clear and distinct ways. It is not brain surgery. Feeding into the totally manufactured concern of accurately modelling "stalker bolt rifle" vs "assault bolt carbine" is the wrong move. The sculpts of all these supposed customisation options are basically identical.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 18:08:10


Post by: vipoid


 oni wrote:
9th edition has largely paralleled 5th edition in that the Core Rules are good, but the codexes have fethed up the whole thing. Also it doesn't help any that the 9th edition missions are absolute garbage.


Eh, I'd say the 9th edition core rules are pretty dire, tbh.

I mean, the whole reason the codices are such a mess is because the core rules are so shallow and provide absolutely nothing for armies to use or build on beyond festooning every unit with an ever-increasing number of bespoke rules.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 18:09:48


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 Gregor Samsa wrote:
Not showing extreme lenience for proxies and counts-as is also ridiculous, even (and especially) at a tournament standard.

Just mark the bases of units in clear and distinct ways. It is not brain surgery. Feeding into the totally manufactured concern of accurately modelling "stalker bolt rifle" vs "assault bolt carbine" is the wrong move. The sculpts of all these supposed customisation options are basically identical.


yeah ,worst case scenario : juste have a piece of paper by the squad.

These 10 Chaos Space Marines with "Khorne berzerkers" written on a piece of paper besides them makes it pretty obvious as to what they are.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 18:13:58


Post by: Tittliewinks22


I miss fire points on vehicles :(


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 18:24:49


Post by: Tawnis


Salt donkey wrote:


3) Price.
GW just loves beating inflation. The price bump this game has gotten was too extreme. This will even out over time, but it was much easier for me to justify a purchase in 8th than in 9th, which combined with the above problems, has decreased what I’ve bought considerably.



I'm a casual player, not a competitive one, so I can't speak to the overall balance of the game. For my casual playgroup, we've really been liking 9th, but then again, we mostly play Crusade based custom campaigns and don't care all that much about balance.

However, what I do know is cost of goods and I can make an educated guess about GW's current price hikes, especially recently in terms of the recent Flayed Ones and Heavy Intecessors. See, in the 2021 the cost of ocean freight has skyrocketed to absurd levels, costing nearly 10 times as much as it did last year with even big name world wide companies not able to catch a break. My guess is that the increase to models is to help offset this, and it's to all customers so that the overseas customers aren't the ones solely bearing the brunt of this. Again, this is just an educated guess from my work in international shipping, I could be totally off base. Even if I'm right though, the real question would be, will the prices go down eventually when the ocean freight market finally gets back to normal, or will GW just assume that everyone is cool with the new prices and make more money?


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 18:27:06


Post by: Blastaar


PenitentJake wrote:
 The Red Hobbit wrote:
That's a great example, D&D 3.X has the relatively lightweight d20 core mechanic but every indidivudal character, NPC or Monster can just be completely buried in the endless amount of options between skill, feats, (prestige-)class features, templates, etc. that it's just a giant pain to deal with when running a game. Not so bad if you're a player with only one character to worry about it.

Applying that to 40k, it's okay to have layers upon layers of rules if you're a Custodes or other ultra expensive ppm army. But for everyone else there's just a headache of rules to have to remember.

Also, agree with Vipoid. It is astonishing to me that you can release a new edition then tell people to wait 1-2 years for their army to get an update. I can't think of any other game company who gets a pass like that.


That's why, for me 3.5 was the best D&D ever. I loved feats and prestige classes. I loved that the open gaming licence gave me hundreds of supplements to choose from- D20 Rokugan!

Simple to me is flavourless and boring. I hate the way skills don't mean jack in D&D 5.0. The game shouldn't even be called D&D- it should be called "Proficiency Bonus" because that's almost the only thing in the game that matter.

As for waiting 1-2 years for books, again, before 8th sometimes we'd go whole editions without getting a faction update- 2 years is nothing. Don't get me wrong, I hate edition churn too, and I think it's the biggest problem with the game. But I've seen people complain about this, and in the very next line, talk about what they want in 10th edition. The only way this doesn't happen is if we finally get a persistent edition.


2nd is fun, too. I completely agree on 5th- characters are cookie-cutter. Zero nuance in their abilities, light on immersion. It's an edition designed to determine a result as quickly as possible while ignoring the journey and, dare I say it, roleplaying.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 18:27:13


Post by: Gert


Nah, GW has been crazy for pricing even before Covid started making things worse.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 18:34:50


Post by: Sim-Life


 Tawnis wrote:
Salt donkey wrote:


3) Price.
GW just loves beating inflation. The price bump this game has gotten was too extreme. This will even out over time, but it was much easier for me to justify a purchase in 8th than in 9th, which combined with the above problems, has decreased what I’ve bought considerably.



I'm a casual player, not a competitive one, so I can't speak to the overall balance of the game. For my casual playgroup, we've really been liking 9th, but then again, we mostly play Crusade based custom campaigns and don't care all that much about balance.

However, what I do know is cost of goods and I can make an educated guess about GW's current price hikes, especially recently in terms of the recent Flayed Ones and Heavy Intecessors. See, in the 2021 the cost of ocean freight has skyrocketed to absurd levels, costing nearly 10 times as much as it did last year with even big name world wide companies not able to catch a break. My guess is that the increase to models is to help offset this, and it's to all customers so that the overseas customers aren't the ones solely bearing the brunt of this. Again, this is just an educated guess from my work in international shipping, I could be totally off base. Even if I'm right though, the real question would be, will the prices go down eventually when the ocean freight market finally gets back to normal, or will GW just assume that everyone is cool with the new prices and make more money?


Its a nice theory but GWs models are produced in the UK. Only their paper/card components are produced in China. GW is being greedy, nothing more, nothing less.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 Grimtuff wrote:

Spoiler:

Because that doesn't happen in current 40k at all. Nope...

Just do it like WMH did theirs. USRs are all tied to select symbols, which are super easy to memorise as there are only a couple of dozen or so.

Let's look at an example:



Now, you can see from that card, if you know what the symbols mean he has Combined Melee Attack, Officer, Pathfinder and Stealth. His weapons are also both Blessed.

Another one that looks super complex but isn't at all:



So, we can see she has Advance Deployment, Assault, Pathfinder and Stealth. Her weapons are all Blessed, Magical and have Disruption. She is also a Weapon Master on her CCWs.

Then on the back of the cards you have any rules that are unique to the model and/or grant USRs when certain conditions are met, such as the rule Prowl, which grants Stealth to a model when they have the benefit of concealment.

This is the best way to do it IMO, especially when coupled with the app, so if you forget what it does you can click on it and it takes you to the relevant rulebook page embedded within said app. No extra text, no needless reprinting of the same rule over and over. This works and works well. I often why of all the things GW chose to pilfer from other systems they never swiped that...


I disagree on that approach for the simple reason that not everyone uses the app so learning the symbols would be pretty tedious. Once you know them, its for sure a good system tho


WMH had the symbols from Mk1, before apps were a thing. You learn them incredibly quickly. Simple symbology is easy to learn. Most board games use symbols and you'll have learned them within an hour or so, often with the first few turns.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 18:37:13


Post by: Tawnis


 Sim-Life wrote:


Its a nice theory but GWs models are produced in the UK. Only their paper/card components are produced in China. GW is being greedy, nothing more, nothing less.


Yeah, but they still have to export them around the world to get to their customers.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 18:42:58


Post by: Gert


Yeah, they do but that's not where the cost comes from. Flayed Ones and Heavy Intercessors are stupid expensive in the UK where they are made so the export thing doesn't make sense.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 18:57:59


Post by: Tawnis


 Gert wrote:
Yeah, they do but that's not where the cost comes from. Flayed Ones and Heavy Intercessors are stupid expensive in the UK where they are made so the export thing doesn't make sense.


Think about it though. It would be much worse off if they only increased it based on region. Here are the two scenarios:

1. UK prices stay the same and everyone there is happy, they buy the normal amount of models because nothing has changed. Meanwhile, costs to North America go up 60 cents on the dollar (which is what we are seeing right now from a freight perspective) and your $115.00 start collecting box now costs close to $200.00. Most people in North America stop buying all together to wait out the massive price hike causing a huge loss in sales. Brick and Mortar GW's close from lack of sales and LGS's stop bringing in anywhere near as much product.

2. Raise everyone's prices, but not so much that people stop buying. Sales may drop a little here and there, but overall customers remains consistent; albeit with a lot of griping about price increases.

Which one of these makes more sense to you to enact from a business POV?


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 19:00:51


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 Sim-Life wrote:

WMH had the symbols from Mk1, before apps were a thing. You learn them incredibly quickly. Simple symbology is easy to learn. Most board games use symbols and you'll have learned them within an hour or so, often with the first few turns.


ok, i think there was an overfocus on the "app" part of my comment. I meant it more like "if i'm gonna need to refer to any source to learn what the symbols mean, i might as well have the text right there on the datasheet (much like MTG does with its keywords having explanations as to what they do on the card itself).

At first you read the reminder, after a while you just look at the keyword or symbol.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 19:00:54


Post by: kirotheavenger


These price increases were happening well before shipping went to chaos. Look at Eldar Banshees.

This is just GW seeing how high they can push their margins before people start walking away. There's no reason to excuse them.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 19:02:06


Post by: oni


 Sim-Life wrote:


Its a nice theory but GWs models are produced in the UK. Only their paper/card components are produced in China. GW is being greedy, nothing more, nothing less.


That's not entirely true. All GW's paper products are made in China, but so are all of their hobby supplies (except paint) and every one of their plastic terrain kits.

Also, I wouldn't be surprised if the raw polystyrene material used to make the kits in the UK is sourced through China.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 19:08:57


Post by: Gert


Spoiler:
 Tawnis wrote:

Think about it though. It would be much worse off if they only increased it based on region. Here are the two scenarios:

1. UK prices stay the same and everyone there is happy, they buy the normal amount of models because nothing has changed. Meanwhile, costs to North America go up 60 cents on the dollar (which is what we are seeing right now from a freight perspective) and your $115.00 start collecting box now costs close to $200.00. Most people in North America stop buying all together to wait out the massive price hike causing a huge loss in sales. Brick and Mortar GW's close from lack of sales and LGS's stop bringing in anywhere near as much product.

2. Raise everyone's prices, but not so much that people stop buying. Sales may drop a little here and there, but overall customers remains consistent; albeit with a lot of griping about price increases.

Which one of these makes more sense to you to enact from a business POV?

None of this matters because GW was always expensive even for a company that makes models. The price rises aren't tied to inflation or anything they just get raised while at the same time cheaper alternatives such as bundles or good value box sets become rare.
When my hobby group started 30k (pre-Calth) there were loads of FW bundles ranging from Tactical blobs to Vehicles+accompanying units. Calth dropped and even more 30k bundles got dropped, then a couple of months after Prospero was released the entire bundle range gets axed and so do the box sets in favour of some Legion upgrade kits and 10-man boxes of the plastic PA models. 30k goes from being still expensive but very accessible, to annoyingly expensive and almost impossible to get people to start.


40k is at its worse point since 7th edition. @ 2021/07/28 19:38:01


Post by: NinthMusketeer


GW prices are high, but it is a total crapshoot how much.