Switch Theme:

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

The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/29 19:02:33


Post by: Wolflord Patrick


So, hear me out... While I'm a huge 40k fan, my best times playing the game were in the 3rd through 5th editions of the game. I'd still gladly go back and play any of those today. Here's why I think the downward spiral started in 6th edition and why I think they're desperately trying to recover still from it.

The 5th edition of Warhammer 40k came out in 2008 and lasted 4 years which was the average cycle for GW games at the time. The game was completely backwards compatible with codex books from the previous edition. 5th edition wasn't perfect by any stretch of imagination. People didn't like the 4++ cover save from ruins, the wound allocation rule where if you gave members in the same unit a piece of different wargear you could allocate wounds to them separately, and so on. However, the game was pretty well streamlined in that everyone had to follow the Standard Force Org chart for list building, there were only 3 phases of the game, and soup-armies made up from units of different codex books wasn't even a problem yet.

Then came 6th edition... 6th edition came out in 2012 and lasted only 2 years which is really nothing more than GW admitting they made a huge mistake with the game. 6th edition brought a TON of rules changes that have had me scratching my head ever since. Rick Priestly, the father of 40k, gave an interview around this time after he had been away from Games Workshop and moved on to Warlord Games and during it he stated that back in the older days of GW the company was very careful not to let the sales team have influence over the rules design team. He went on to say that once the sales team had their way it would end any sort of perceived balance that existed within the game. I bring this up, because if you look at the changes that 6th edition introduced, most of them were elements of the game that were reserved for Apocalypse games and integrated
into regular 40k games to push further sales of those Apoc models. Before 6th edition, you didn't have entire armies of knights or superheavy tanks in a game of 40k. You didn't have strength D weapons in a regular game of 40k. You also didn't have un-killable flyers (newly introduced) or a cumbersome psychic phase. 6th edition introduced fortifications into regular games of 40k, where now players could buy certain terrain pieces to add to part of their army. As 6th edition went on, a lot of players (myself included) found that we enjoyed the game a lot less than in previous editions.

Then just 2 years later, we got 7th edition and sadly, it doubled down on most of the elements previously released in 6th. With 7th edition we got formations which really pushed the soup lists to the point of insanity. As most will remember, the formation rules gave in-game bonuses to players who brought the units listed in the formation. Really this was a genius sales tactic, but totally unbalanced. Basically, if you didn't like 6th edition, chances are you hated 7th. The downward spiral continued...

Now that the barn doors were open and all the animals were loose, GW tried their best to wrangle them back in by hitting the reset button on 40k and releasing 8th edition in 2017. After the push to open the flood gates of allies, knights, and superheavies of the 2 previous editions, you might have wondered what GW would do next? Well, how about introducing Primaris marines! Which, I'll admit the models do look beautiful. In 8th edition they scrapped the templates, Armor Values, scatter dice, and the To Hit and To Wound charts. In their place you've now had to learn how Stratagems and Command Points work. Stratagems basically took the place Formations from 7th edition where you got bonuses based on different units you brought in your army, so while it was sold to us as a big reset, essentially it was the same game just with more rules. My biggest pet peeve with 8th edition is that while it only lasted 3 years, I had to basically buy 5 codex books to play my Imperial Fists. I started with the Imperial Index I, and followed that up 10 minutes later with the Space Marine Codex. About a 18 months after that was released, GW sold us an updated Space Marine codex and then a supplemental codex. Then a short while later came the Psychic Awakening books. What a waste...

That now leads us to last November and the 9th edition of 40k was released with a shiny new 40k logo and soon after another new Space Marine codex! Command Points for Stratagems are still the thing to harvest, but in a different twist you're now awarded them for bringing solo codex armies. I will give 9th edition credit that I like it more than 8th in that regard. However, when you think that GW released 4 different editions of the game in an 8 year span (2012-2020) it's hard not to think that their only consistency is inconsistency and the constant push to sell you a new Space Marine codex along with separate books every year to tell you the points of your units (Which was the whole purpose of selling you a codex in the first place going back to 2nd edition.)

So, I digress... If you enjoy the latest edition, then that's awesome. Just don't get too used to it, because we're probably only 18 months away from another one.





The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/29 19:09:49


Post by: AnomanderRake


I may be marked a heretic and purged for this, but I'd argue the downward spiral started in 5th (right after Priestly & Co. left). Loss of options, statline bloat, the push to sell powerful new big models over fixing the stuff that existed, the push to make named characters better than generic characters, and the push to make new Space Marines over half of all releases all started in 5th.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/29 19:41:11


Post by: BrianDavion


 AnomanderRake wrote:
I may be marked a heretic and purged for this, but I'd argue the downward spiral started in 5th (right after Priestly & Co. left). Loss of options, statline bloat, the push to sell powerful new big models over fixing the stuff that existed, the push to make named characters better than generic characters, and the push to make new Space Marines over half of all releases all started in 5th.


except options where lost in 4th.



The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/29 19:43:09


Post by: Vaktathi


6E was definitely a change, in both pace and philosophy. Personally I find the 6E/7E era to be the worst period of 40k's history, in its incarnation as a tabletop wargame, but the churn of the current era is real.

The big problem to me is that the increase in pace hasnt so much removed the problem of outdated or forgotten factions, its just added more stuff in general to keep track of.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/29 19:54:08


Post by: Polonius


5th edition made obvious fixes to 4th edition (vehicles and missions), but than made a lot of unforced errors, particularly in the 4+ cover and wound allocations. 5th edition also introduced killpoints, which was a gut punch for a lot of armies.

Still, what killed 5th edition wasn't the core rules, but the codexes, which dramatically increased the power level. The 123 sequence of IG, Wolves, and Grey Knights turned the game over, and made playing other armies very tough.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/29 20:02:31


Post by: Arson Fire


Yeah 5th edition had that mid-point where the new codexes started getting ridiculous. It was a good edition up until then.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/29 20:04:58


Post by: yukishiro1


Yeah, and there are certain worrying parallels there with 9th. At least now they do sorta fix their mistakes, but you can still do a lot of damage by releasing untested, overpowered junk books whether you fix them a few months down the road or not, especially if you do it repeatedly.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/29 20:24:57


Post by: leerm02


I heartily agree, and think your piece is quite well written to boot!

I think that, at this point, it would probably be best if the community as a whole took up the ball that GW dropped, and implemented some form of "unified old-hammer" that was simplified, streamlined, and allowed you to use the models you already had with very barebones statlines and special rules.

That may be a bit of a pie-in-the-sky type thinking, but I know I have gotten absolutely frikkin sick of buying codex after codex just to line GW's pockets.

I think that, barring some kind of movement like this, with people just flat out not supporting the new rules ect, we are just going to keep up this same trend.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/29 20:58:58


Post by: Stormonu


It all started with the the 3E wipe....


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/29 21:15:54


Post by: Insectum7


5th is about where certain hollistic design integrities started to erode.



The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/29 21:16:45


Post by: Tawnis


leerm02 wrote:
I heartily agree, and think your piece is quite well written to boot!

I think that, at this point, it would probably be best if the community as a whole took up the ball that GW dropped, and implemented some form of "unified old-hammer" that was simplified, streamlined, and allowed you to use the models you already had with very barebones statlines and special rules.

That may be a bit of a pie-in-the-sky type thinking, but I know I have gotten absolutely frikkin sick of buying codex after codex just to line GW's pockets.

I think that, barring some kind of movement like this, with people just flat out not supporting the new rules ect, we are just going to keep up this same trend.


I'd be down for that, where do I sign up? Anything that helps make Kroot playable. In all seriousness, I would be totally down to help out if someone took the lead on this. There's a big community here, I'm sure with enough dedicated people, we could get a lot of playtesting done. There are plenty of youtubers in the community to spread the word once it's finished. Make a big enough noise and GW won't be able to not hear us.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/29 21:17:16


Post by: Insectum7


 Stormonu wrote:
It all started with the the 3E wipe....


Heh. There's an argument to be made there although for slightly different reasons.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/29 22:12:24


Post by: CEO Kasen


 Tawnis wrote:
leerm02 wrote:
I heartily agree, and think your piece is quite well written to boot!

I think that, at this point, it would probably be best if the community as a whole took up the ball that GW dropped, and implemented some form of "unified old-hammer" that was simplified, streamlined, and allowed you to use the models you already had with very barebones statlines and special rules.

That may be a bit of a pie-in-the-sky type thinking, but I know I have gotten absolutely frikkin sick of buying codex after codex just to line GW's pockets.

I think that, barring some kind of movement like this, with people just flat out not supporting the new rules ect, we are just going to keep up this same trend.


I'd be down for that, where do I sign up? Anything that helps make Kroot playable. In all seriousness, I would be totally down to help out if someone took the lead on this. There's a big community here, I'm sure with enough dedicated people, we could get a lot of playtesting done. There are plenty of youtubers in the community to spread the word once it's finished. Make a big enough noise and GW won't be able to not hear us.


There's the miniatures-agnostic but 40k-compatible One Page Rules: Grimdark Future, which is Diet 40K, free of charge, and that I have found to be far more playable and generally more enjoyable than 9th edition 40K. If that doesn't qualify, and it might not, there's a setup for 5th Ed Oldhammer that its codifier is calling Prohammer over on Proposed Rules, but I've yet to personally try it and it will require digging up old codexes from somewhere.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/29 22:22:05


Post by: morganfreeman


 AnomanderRake wrote:
I may be marked a heretic and purged for this, but I'd argue the downward spiral started in 5th (right after Priestly & Co. left). Loss of options, statline bloat, the push to sell powerful new big models over fixing the stuff that existed, the push to make named characters better than generic characters, and the push to make new Space Marines over half of all releases all started in 5th.


I agree that 5th had some core issues (all editions have), but I think it was still superior to 4th. Most noticeably because it made more units and styles functional, while also removing some of the most broken gak in the game (skimmers being immune to CC). I also believe that making Named Characters actually usable was a good thing, even if it's gone incredibly far overboard by this point.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/29 22:30:36


Post by: solkan


Is there some sort of doomsaying competition going on?

If you're going to claim that 40k is in a downward spiral, you better be claiming that that spiral started the edition after Rogue Trader. *cough* 3rd edition Lash Princes *cough*

Because from where I'm sitting, the history of 40k has been twenty to thirty years of people playing 40k, then trying to fix 40k, and every time claiming to have succeeded. And only some of those people were doing so by making games produces by other companies.




The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/29 22:58:33


Post by: vipoid


I would agree that 40k's downward spiral started in 6th.

5th wasn't without issues but 6th and 7th dumped truckloads of garbage onto the game. Compared to other miniature games, 40k's rules were already convoluted and wobbly (look at the sheer volume of rules 40k has, and all for a system that still ended up being far shallower than other games), and so the last thing they needed was to also have to account for fliers, super-heavies etc..

These things are nigh-impossible to balance because you either make them near-identical to normal vehicles (in which case the people playing them aren't happy because, for example, fliers feel barely different to skimmers), or else you make them more "realistic" (in which case they're boring as hell to play against and allow for ridiculous skew lists "What's that? Your Dark Eldar army didn't bring an entire battery of IG Hydras? Too bad - enjoy being roasted by my Helldrakes which you have no reasonable chance of killing, no matter what you throw at them."). And that's without even getting into the joys of 7th's psychic phase, D-weapons or Formations.


What's more, whilst 8th removed some of the more troublesome elements, it then just went ahead and replaced them with different troublesome elements. Every army now has entire stacks of special rules even for basic grunts, supplemented by a game of Yugioh. "Not so fast! You activated my trap card -er- I mean, my Stratagem!". Wargear and customisation is all but gone, but not to worry because every HQ, regardless of function or faction, now has the same dull, stupid, interactionless auras. Yey for diversity and customisation.


To be clear, I'm not saying that pre-6th was perfect by any stretch of the imagination. Just that I think the core framework of the game would have been far better to build around than anything from 6th onwards.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/29 23:02:51


Post by: catbarf


 vipoid wrote:
and so the last thing they needed was to also have to account for fliers, super-heavies etc..

These things are nigh-impossible to balance because you either make them near-identical to normal vehicles (in which case the people playing them aren't happy because, for example, fliers feel barely different to skimmers), or else you make them more "realistic" (in which case they're boring as hell to play against and allow for ridiculous skew lists "What's that? Your Dark Eldar army didn't bring an entire battery of IG Hydras? Too bad - enjoy being roasted by my Helldrakes which you have no reasonable chance of killing, no matter what you throw at them."). And that's without even getting into the joys of 7th's psychic phase, D-weapons or Formations.


You're explicitly describing 5th Ed, though. I remember Valkyrie spam being incredibly oppressive.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/29 23:46:03


Post by: vipoid


 catbarf wrote:
 vipoid wrote:
and so the last thing they needed was to also have to account for fliers, super-heavies etc..

These things are nigh-impossible to balance because you either make them near-identical to normal vehicles (in which case the people playing them aren't happy because, for example, fliers feel barely different to skimmers), or else you make them more "realistic" (in which case they're boring as hell to play against and allow for ridiculous skew lists "What's that? Your Dark Eldar army didn't bring an entire battery of IG Hydras? Too bad - enjoy being roasted by my Helldrakes which you have no reasonable chance of killing, no matter what you throw at them."). And that's without even getting into the joys of 7th's psychic phase, D-weapons or Formations.


You're explicitly describing 5th Ed, though. I remember Valkyrie spam being incredibly oppressive.


I fail to see how an AV12 skimmer is anywhere near as bad as the same AV12 skimmer that can only be hit on 6s by all but a handful of weapons in the game, and which is also immune to melee as well.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/30 02:51:14


Post by: Canadian 5th


 solkan wrote:
Is there some sort of doomsaying competition going on?

If you're going to claim that 40k is in a downward spiral, you better be claiming that that spiral started the edition after Rogue Trader. *cough* 3rd edition Lash Princes *cough*

Because from where I'm sitting, the history of 40k has been twenty to thirty years of people playing 40k, then trying to fix 40k, and every time claiming to have succeeded. And only some of those people were doing so by making games produces by other companies.

Lash Princes were a 4th edition issue.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/30 02:58:17


Post by: Insectum7


^5th really. Lash-Prince Chaos book came out in the last few months on 4th. Most (years) of 4th ed was Chaos 3.5.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/30 03:03:45


Post by: Jarms48


I have fond memories of 5th edition. I do think with a few tweaks it could have been the best edition ever.

For the Guard codex, some things just needed some points adjustments. Chimeras (as well as most factions dedicated transports at the time) needed a points increase. Conscripts should have been separate from the Infantry Platoon like they are now (maybe with a slight points increase for the additional flexibility and no Infantry Platoon tax).

The other thing I would have liked with Guard is the doctrine elements from the 3.5 codex meshed into the 5th edition one. To actually allow all those Guardsmen to be more customised. Then just tweak some of the more powerful doctrines with higher point costs and reducing or removing point costs from the weaker ones. IE: Warrior Weapons should have been free.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/30 03:29:32


Post by: NinthMusketeer


Yeah, I can see it. I stopped playing in 6th, not right at the start but about a year in because it just wasn't as much fun anymore. 8th really did seem to reverse the trend, up until that marines codex.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/30 07:03:50


Post by: AnomanderRake


 vipoid wrote:
...These things are nigh-impossible to balance because you either make them near-identical to normal vehicles (in which case the people playing them aren't happy because, for example, fliers feel barely different to skimmers), or else you make them more "realistic" (in which case they're boring as hell to play against and allow for ridiculous skew lists "What's that? Your Dark Eldar army didn't bring an entire battery of IG Hydras? Too bad - enjoy being roasted by my Helldrakes which you have no reasonable chance of killing, no matter what you throw at them."). And that's without even getting into the joys of 7th's psychic phase, D-weapons or Formations...


Flyers are absolutely possible to balance reasonably. The Valkyrie under the 4e FW flyer rules was 175pts for 11/11/10 and otherwise pretty much the same loadout/stats as the 6e incarnation, and was completely fine. The 100pt 12/12/10 Valkyrie as a flyer in 6th was silly.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/30 07:17:52


Post by: Deadnight


 Wolflord Patrick wrote:
So, hear me out... While I'm a huge 40k fan, my best times playing the game were in the 3rd through 5th editions of the game. I'd still gladly go back and play any of those today. Here's why I think the downward spiral started in 6th edition and why I think they're desperately trying to recover still from it.



Take off the rose tints Patrick.

The downward spiral began right after they decided to do a warhammer game, but in spaaaace back in thr 80s.

Everyone's 'best times' was when they started and the first couple of years in the hobby, whenever that was. and the ideal was just before then. There'll be folks who say 6th and 7th were the best, and folks that'll say 2nd. For me, I joined in 3rd, 4th was the edition I was most familiar with and to my mates who I played with, 2nd was the best to them, and everything since then was a disappointment.

The game back then was just as broken and frustrating as now, just in a different way.

And for all the doom regarding the doom spiral, the models have never been better, there have never been more ways of playing anf enjoying gw games, and *glances at share prices*, gw are doing well.

Edit: better phrases.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/30 07:23:21


Post by: AnomanderRake


Deadnight wrote:
...Everyone's 'best times' was right when they started and the ideal was just before then...


You know you're talking to someone who starting in 3rd and thinks 5th was the golden spot, right?


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/30 07:33:02


Post by: Jarms48


 AnomanderRake wrote:
Deadnight wrote:
...Everyone's 'best times' was right when they started and the ideal was just before then...


You know you're talking to someone who starting in 3rd and thinks 5th was the golden spot, right?


Hey, hey, same here! Started in 3rd and felt 5th was the best. Sure there were flaws, but that could have been fixed.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/30 07:51:27


Post by: Deadnight


 AnomanderRake wrote:
Deadnight wrote:
...Everyone's 'best times' was right when they started and the ideal was just before then...


You know you're talking to someone who starting in 3rd and thinks 5th was the golden spot, right?


Im old, OK. And it's early. And I've not had my coffee.

'Right when they started' can cover more than just a moment in time, but fair enough, it's not the best turn of phrase. I'll go back and edit.

Flr what it's worth, I started I 3rd, and 4th was the best for me. And still maintain folks talked about the downward spiral of the game since before then too.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/30 07:51:45


Post by: Grimtuff


 AnomanderRake wrote:
Deadnight wrote:
...Everyone's 'best times' was right when they started and the ideal was just before then...


You know you're talking to someone who starting in 3rd and thinks 5th was the golden spot, right?


Nah, let him wheel out the cliches to tell someone why they are wrong for thinking older editions are superior...

I'm in more or less the same boat as the OP. Started in late 2nd, but didn't really hit my stride until 3rd. 5th was peak 40k then they went and gak the bed with 6th and 7th.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/30 07:54:43


Post by: ccs


Deadnight wrote:

Everyone's 'best times' was right when they started and the ideal was just before then.


Having started in the closing days of RT I'm going to disagree with that.
There was nothing "before" 40k wise.
RT is definitely not my favorite edition nor does it include any of my "best times".

I'd prefer the 3rd - 5th era with some of 8th/9th.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/30 07:58:32


Post by: KingmanHighborn


Stormonu wrote:It all started with the the 3E wipe....


A wipe taking everything back to the Big Black Rulebook of 3rd, with all the armies in the book, the simple rules, the neat pages of lore and art, heck it even had a battle report in the rule book... man that'd be perfect.
A codexs when they did come out, that were 15 bucks, paperback, fit easily into a case, and actually had more CONTENT then the hardback books now. Had not only deeper unit options, but also had pages on tactics and how to use the army.

Wolflord Patrick wrote:So, hear me out... While I'm a huge 40k fan, my best times playing the game were in the 3rd through 5th editions of the game. I'd still gladly go back and play any of those today. Here's why I think the downward spiral started in 6th edition and why I think they're desperately trying to recover still from it.

The 5th edition of Warhammer 40k came out in 2008 and lasted 4 years which was the average cycle for GW games at the time. The game was completely backwards compatible with codex books from the previous edition. 5th edition wasn't perfect by any stretch of imagination. People didn't like the 4++ cover save from ruins, the wound allocation rule where if you gave members in the same unit a piece of different wargear you could allocate wounds to them separately, and so on. However, the game was pretty well streamlined in that everyone had to follow the Standard Force Org chart for list building, there were only 3 phases of the game, and soup-armies made up from units of different codex books wasn't even a problem yet.

Then came 6th edition... 6th edition came out in 2012 and lasted only 2 years which is really nothing more than GW admitting they made a huge mistake with the game. 6th edition brought a TON of rules changes that have had me scratching my head ever since. Rick Priestly, the father of 40k, gave an interview around this time after he had been away from Games Workshop and moved on to Warlord Games and during it he stated that back in the older days of GW the company was very careful not to let the sales team have influence over the rules design team. He went on to say that once the sales team had their way it would end any sort of perceived balance that existed within the game. I bring this up, because if you look at the changes that 6th edition introduced, most of them were elements of the game that were reserved for Apocalypse games and integrated
into regular 40k games to push further sales of those Apoc models. Before 6th edition, you didn't have entire armies of knights or superheavy tanks in a game of 40k. You didn't have strength D weapons in a regular game of 40k. You also didn't have un-killable flyers (newly introduced) or a cumbersome psychic phase. 6th edition introduced fortifications into regular games of 40k, where now players could buy certain terrain pieces to add to part of their army. As 6th edition went on, a lot of players (myself included) found that we enjoyed the game a lot less than in previous editions.

Then just 2 years later, we got 7th edition and sadly, it doubled down on most of the elements previously released in 6th. With 7th edition we got formations which really pushed the soup lists to the point of insanity. As most will remember, the formation rules gave in-game bonuses to players who brought the units listed in the formation. Really this was a genius sales tactic, but totally unbalanced. Basically, if you didn't like 6th edition, chances are you hated 7th. The downward spiral continued...

Now that the barn doors were open and all the animals were loose, GW tried their best to wrangle them back in by hitting the reset button on 40k and releasing 8th edition in 2017. After the push to open the flood gates of allies, knights, and superheavies of the 2 previous editions, you might have wondered what GW would do next? Well, how about introducing Primaris marines! Which, I'll admit the models do look beautiful. In 8th edition they scrapped the templates, Armor Values, scatter dice, and the To Hit and To Wound charts. In their place you've now had to learn how Stratagems and Command Points work. Stratagems basically took the place Formations from 7th edition where you got bonuses based on different units you brought in your army, so while it was sold to us as a big reset, essentially it was the same game just with more rules. My biggest pet peeve with 8th edition is that while it only lasted 3 years, I had to basically buy 5 codex books to play my Imperial Fists. I started with the Imperial Index I, and followed that up 10 minutes later with the Space Marine Codex. About a 18 months after that was released, GW sold us an updated Space Marine codex and then a supplemental codex. Then a short while later came the Psychic Awakening books. What a waste...

That now leads us to last November and the 9th edition of 40k was released with a shiny new 40k logo and soon after another new Space Marine codex! Command Points for Stratagems are still the thing to harvest, but in a different twist you're now awarded them for bringing solo codex armies. I will give 9th edition credit that I like it more than 8th in that regard. However, when you think that GW released 4 different editions of the game in an 8 year span (2012-2020) it's hard not to think that their only consistency is inconsistency and the constant push to sell you a new Space Marine codex along with separate books every year to tell you the points of your units (Which was the whole purpose of selling you a codex in the first place going back to 2nd edition.)

So, I digress... If you enjoy the latest edition, then that's awesome. Just don't get too used to it, because we're probably only 18 months away from another one.


Said everything I could, with less curse words and fury. I 100% agree with this. Formations, Buy a building, Allies, Flyers (which should have just been folded under skimmers), titan armies, detachments, command points, strategems, etc. All played a part in killing the game for me. I never thought I'd truly miss the Standard Force Organization chart. But I do. It's miles above and beyond a better system than the gobbly [see forum posting rules] junk that detachments are now.

Also miss simple things like templates, and armor values/armor facing and vehicle damage charts.

Formations may of worked though, if people had to have their units in an actual... you know formation. Instead it was often a random drag and drop of units that didn't even mesh together. An actual formation, made of multiple units, with a 'formation' coherency, and movement a al Warhammer Fantasy would have made the game tactical and interesting. But no, it was just 'scoop and dump these models on the table and win' formula.

Oh! And moral checks that made sense! Pass and all's good. Fail and it's 'Run Away!' Now it's some extra wound bs.

Insectum7 wrote:^5th really. Lash-Prince Chaos book came out in the last few months on 4th. Most (years) of 4th ed was Chaos 3.5.


Chaos 3.5 codex was the best codex GW ever wrote. Easy to use, deep as the ocean in army building options, the defiler wasn't even a MODEL yet. Troll magazine had a feature on how to make your own, cause it was was a GIFT to hobbyists to make their own cool thing for their army. Perfect book.

Deadnight wrote:
The game back then was just as broken and frustrating as now, just in a different way.

And for all the doom regarding the doom spiral, the models have never been better, there have never been more ways of playing anf enjoying gw games, and *glances at share prices*, gw are doing well.


Not really. 3rd was perfect. 4th had some things I didn't like but it was still good. (3rd had sweeping advance, 'catch and kill' units failing moral checks, and charging out of vehicles. Seriously these need to come back.) 5th was meh, but I still loved the lore and the game was still more for the hobby, and not Pay 2 Win esports with miniatures that it is now.

And yeah the models LOOK better, but there's less options to build them out, not as conversion friendly as GW is trying to KILL conversions at every chance, there was as many ways to enjoy GW games in 2000-2004 as there is today. Cause yeah you got Kill Team, and Necromunda and Blood Bowl, but back in the day you HAD THAT AND there was also healthy support for Warmaster, Battle Fleet Gothic, Epic 40K (the only place a knight titan army should be.), Gorkamorka, and Inquisitor.

And yeah, their share prices are up. So are EA's, and GW is the tabletop equivalent of EA. They saw what the predatory Triple A video game industry has been doing, and they set out to mimic it much as they could for little plastic soldiers.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/30 08:02:09


Post by: Deadnight


 Grimtuff wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
Deadnight wrote:
...Everyone's 'best times' was right when they started and the ideal was just before then...


You know you're talking to someone who starting in 3rd and thinks 5th was the golden spot, right?


Nah, let him wheel out the cliches to tell someone why they are wrong for thinking older editions are superior...

I'm in more or less the same boat as the OP. Started in late 2nd, but didn't really hit my stride until 3rd. 5th was peak 40k then they went and gak the bed with 6th and 7th.


Oh please.

Firstly -Poor phrase which I've since corrected to better present my thoughts.

Seconfly - I'm not saying he's wrong to prefer an older edition. Or to think 5th was the peak. I have some fond memories of 4th and most of my favourite lore was written back in 2nd. I hated fifth. Absolutely detested it. It was on no way any kind of 'pinnacle' of 40k for me.

I disagree with the notion that the 'downward spiral' was some recent phenomenon that can be pinpointed to a specific moment in time. Or that the 40k ecosystem of games and media is somehow 'worse now than it was then. It'll differ for everyone.

Plenty folks would have said that for third too and I've seen enough posts from people saying they've had more fun with 8th ed 40k than they've had in years to simply assume we are living in 'lesser days' now.

ccs wrote:
Deadnight wrote:

Everyone's 'best times' was right when they started and the ideal was just before then.


Having started in the closing days of RT I'm going to disagree with that.
There was nothing "before" 40k wise.
RT is definitely not my favorite edition nor does it include any of my "best times".

I'd prefer the 3rd - 5th era with some of 8th/9th.


Please see my edit. What i wrote poorly conveyed my thoughts; I meant to imply 'back when you started and the first few years in the hobby' by what I said. But hey, internet.

 KingmanHighborn wrote:

Not really. 3rd was perfect. 4th had some things I didn't like but it was still good. (3rd had sweeping advance, 'catch and kill' units failing moral checks, and charging out of vehicles. Seriously these need to come back.) 5th was meh, but I still loved the lore and the game was still more for the hobby, and not Pay 2 Win esports with miniatures that it is now.


I'll disagree on third being 'perfect'. rhino rush or shoot the rhino rush. And sweeping advance and charging out of rhinos was ridiculous.

 KingmanHighborn wrote:

And yeah the models LOOK better, but there's less options to build them out, not as conversion friendly as GW is trying to KILL conversions at every chance,


I played warmachine for ten years. Single pose models is something I've gotten used to and their conversion policy was way more stringent than gws (don't stop me though!). For what it's worth though I prefer the more dynamic modern poses than what I saw as pseudo variety of older kids (another debate entirely) and for what it's worth, you can still convert the hell out of your 40k stuff.

 KingmanHighborn wrote:

there was as many ways to enjoy GW games in 2000-2004 as there is today. Cause yeah you got Kill Team, and Necromunda and Blood Bowl, but back in the day you HAD THAT AND there was also healthy support for Warmaster, Battle Fleet Gothic, Epic 40K (the only place a knight titan army should be.), Gorkamorka, and Inquisitor.


Fair points all. Maybe it's fairer to say 'we've not had so many ways of enjoying the 40k universe in years'.

Saying 'things are worse now, gw used to do a tonne of games' would be a perfectly fair thing to say in the death throes of the kirby era when they'd pruned everything back to.just 40k and wfb. Now I just dont agree.

Again, good thing all told. Not a downward spiral. They brought back specialist games and have introduced the likes of bsf (which I loved), there's also all the computer games and the TV stuff coming along. Honestly I've never been happier in my hobby.

 KingmanHighborn wrote:

And yeah, their share prices are up. So are EA's, and GW is the tabletop equivalent of EA. They saw what the predatory Triple A video game industry has been doing, and they set out to mimic it much as they could for little plastic soldiers.


Oh trust me, I understand this. gw are not my 'friend'. They're a business minded company. Point was, they're doing OK.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/30 08:28:32


Post by: Nazrak


There's already another entire thread of people pissing and moaning about the supposed terminal decline of 40K, is another one really necessary?


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/30 08:38:26


Post by: Karol


Deadnight 800015 11186509 wrote:

Everyone's 'best times' was when they started and the first couple of years in the hobby, whenever that was.


I am not sure about that. I started at the very start of 8th ed. 8th ed was not fun and in general a horrible expiriance for me. I found the start of 9th very nice and fun to play, till DE book came out. And even now with DE and Ad mecha being the way they are, it is still more fun then it was in 8th.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/30 09:17:29


Post by: vipoid


 AnomanderRake wrote:

Flyers are absolutely possible to balance reasonably. The Valkyrie under the 4e FW flyer rules was 175pts for 11/11/10 and otherwise pretty much the same loadout/stats as the 6e incarnation, and was completely fine. The 100pt 12/12/10 Valkyrie as a flyer in 6th was silly.


So you make no distinction between Flier rules and Skimmer rules?

Because Flier rules literally didn't exist until 6th- everything before then (at least going back to 3rd, which was when i started) was a skimmer.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/30 09:25:47


Post by: kirotheavenger


FW had apocalypse rules for flyers.

6th edition flyer rules more or less dumped FW flyer rules on top of 40k Skimmer rules.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/30 10:38:18


Post by: Da Boss


Started in 2e and enjoyed (more or less) every edition until the end of 5th. 5th was the best time for me playing, but I'm not sure I can disagregate that from having a great and active group of friends and my particular faction (orks) having a really fun and deep book to use. 5e definitely had issues, but I felt like I had the tools to tackle most of them. 6e was enormously offputting to me and 7th even worse. I am constantly on the verge of getting back into 40k now that they've overhauled it but it seems like a lot of effort to keep up with everything they are releasing and the general pace of the game at this point in my life. I reckon if I was in a different stage where I had more time and a good group I could be having a lot of fun with the current edition. I still think fliers and superheavies look stupid on the tiny boards though.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/30 10:58:39


Post by: Lord Zarkov


 vipoid wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:

Flyers are absolutely possible to balance reasonably. The Valkyrie under the 4e FW flyer rules was 175pts for 11/11/10 and otherwise pretty much the same loadout/stats as the 6e incarnation, and was completely fine. The 100pt 12/12/10 Valkyrie as a flyer in 6th was silly.


So you make no distinction between Flier rules and Skimmer rules?

Because Flier rules literally didn't exist until 6th- everything before then (at least going back to 3rd, which was when i started) was a skimmer.


3rd Ed had flyer rules, but they were only in the FW books that contained flyers and in the Vehicle Design Rules in Chapter Approved. They were very much an ‘opponent’s permission’ thing though.

They were however more like how a flyer would operate - they did very distinct strafing/bombing runs across the battlefield and had a range modifier for incoming attacks to represent how high up they were.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/30 11:07:19


Post by: Ketara


I'd agree that 5th was the best edition generally, but with some caveats.

-Late 3rd had some wonderful flavour to it in choices that 4th stripped out in the name of simplicity that never came back for 5th.
-Late 5th was also subject to horrendous codex creep from mid-way through. Things like Grey Knights needed serious toning down.
-The main 5th rulebook had some screwups with regards to wound allocation and the like which needed ironing out.
-6th did introduce a handful of useful things which could have been integrated with 5th with little issue - like the way psychic powers worked.

If you could rewrite 5th whilst addressing those points, you'd likely have the best edition of the game anyone could ever want. Your main problem now would be successfully integrating things like titans and flyers (since everyone has them) without ruining the core gameplay experience.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/30 11:15:49


Post by: Sgt. Cortez


I'd say 40Ks downward spiral started at the end of 5th and ended with the end of 7th Edition.
Then it went downhill again with SM Codex 2.0, but from a casual view 9th Codizes look pretty balanced against each other, so much so that my gaming group is discussing to stick with 9th if 10th doesn't finally bring alternating activations. 3 years lifespan for an Edition is simply too short for casual gamers that also have 3-5 other gaming systems that don't change their rules literally every time you play them.
It's still unbelievable GW could write Lotr in 2001 and made it as perfect so it basically hasn't changed for 20years.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/30 11:24:02


Post by: kirotheavenger


I think GW has some excellent writers that are capable of writing some excellent rules.
But they're held back by the weight of 40k. Even 8th edition wasn't that much of a reboot honestly. It feels the only things they did was remove vehicles, blasts, and independent characters, and add strats.
Also the sheer breadth of armies creates a big problem. Trying to account for everything from Guard to Knights to Space Marines and everything in between is really difficult.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/30 11:28:25


Post by: PenitentJake


I sat out for 6 and 7. GSC were gone and the 6th ed sister dex was terrible compared to Witch Hunters. There was no reason to play.

GSC would have brought me back to 7th. I bought the dex, but by the time I decided to get the BRB, they had announced that 8th was on the way, so I waited til it dropped to buy back in.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/30 11:30:22


Post by: Da Boss


Adding superheavies and fliers to the game was a mistake but once added they have to be kept or it screws over the people who bought them. So the rules writers need to sort out how to manage them. I would make destroying a superheavy a major contribution to the win conditions of any game they are in but I can see problems with that approach too.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/30 11:37:09


Post by: A.T.


Deadnight wrote:
Everyone's 'best times' was when they started and the first couple of years in the hobby, whenever that was. and the ideal was just before then.
Eh... started in rogue trader - wasn't the best times. Restarted in each successive edition with differing impressions.

I think early 5th was the last time I could pick any army from the roster and get both an acceptably level playing field. By the end of 5th I no longer felt that.

It was no single change though as different players have different priorities - for example I never cared for the various abusable faction freebie rules, in my mind something like an Evil Sunz list was defined by taking lots of bikes and not by getting ++bike rules, but the loss of those kind of rules are the start of the downward spiral for others.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/30 12:29:10


Post by: Arschbombe


While I'd agree that a lot of the problems current 40K has got their start in 6th (flyers, fortifications, allies/detachments), I'd point the beginning of the downward spiral to 3rd. That seems to be the point at which the sales guys defeated the design guys and model sales became the focus. Many know the story of how 3rd was originally a refinement of 2nd, but got scrapped in favor of a hastily modified WWII ruleset that significantly increased the model count.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/30 13:04:44


Post by: moreorless


Deadnight wrote:
I disagree with the notion that the 'downward spiral' was some recent phenomenon that can be pinpointed to a specific moment in time. Or that the 40k ecosystem of games and media is somehow 'worse now than it was then. It'll differ for everyone.

Plenty folks would have said that for third too and I've seen enough posts from people saying they've had more fun with 8th ed 40k than they've had in years to simply assume we are living in 'lesser days' now.


I do tend to think a big issue has been the rise of the more competitive side of the game which has come to dominate most discussion on the net and is always more likely to expose weakensses in the rules.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/30 13:17:03


Post by: Deadnight


moreorless wrote:
Deadnight wrote:
I disagree with the notion that the 'downward spiral' was some recent phenomenon that can be pinpointed to a specific moment in time. Or that the 40k ecosystem of games and media is somehow 'worse now than it was then. It'll differ for everyone.

Plenty folks would have said that for third too and I've seen enough posts from people saying they've had more fun with 8th ed 40k than they've had in years to simply assume we are living in 'lesser days' now.


I do tend to think a big issue has been the rise of the more competitive side of the game which has come to dominate most discussion on the net and is always more likely to expose weakensses in the rules.


I dunno. That side of it has always been there and I don't think it's any 'worse'. It's not a recent phenomenon at all. I remember portent (pre warseer) back twenty odd years ago and the same chats being centred around the competitive game, rules exploits and list building for advantage dominated then,as now.
Back then gw leaked like a siv. You'd know everything in a codex three to six months before release- all the broken builds would be mathed out even before the codex hit the shelves. Fun times!
.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/30 13:45:05


Post by: A.T.


 Arschbombe wrote:
That seems to be the point at which the sales guys defeated the design guys and model sales became the focus. Many know the story of how 3rd was originally a refinement of 2nd, but got scrapped in favor of a hastily modified WWII ruleset that significantly increased the model count.
I've not heard that story, but the problem with the 2nd ed rules in general was that it was a system designed for individual models to engage other individual models that had the concept of a squad unit for limited purposes such as moving together - each model had their own facing, their own sub-combat phase, and were targeted as an individual.

3e onwards was squad vs squad.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/30 13:45:16


Post by: vipoid


 kirotheavenger wrote:
I think GW has some excellent writers that are capable of writing some excellent rules.
But they're held back by the weight of 40k. Even 8th edition wasn't that much of a reboot honestly. It feels the only things they did was remove vehicles, blasts, and independent characters, and add strats.


The other aspect is that, despite the changes made, 8th and 9th's editions rules still feel very clunky.

For a non-wargame example, 5th edition D&D made an effort to streamline many of the rules from prior editions. And whilst hardly perfect, combat at least felt smoother than in, say, 3.5. It often came down to simple things - like being able to spread your movement into sections. So if you had 30ft of movement, you could move 10ft, attack an enemy, move 5ft and attack a different enemy, and then move the remaining 15ft. Whereas, in 3.5, you'd have only been able to either move and attack or attack and then move. It was a very simple and straightforward change but it made a huge difference to how combat felt.

Meanwhile, in 40k, none of the changes really help in this area - often because their replacements were just as awkward. We now have movement characteristics but both Advancing and Charge distances still use random numbers anyway. Initiative is gone but instead we have a mess of always-strikes-first and always-strikes-last abilities, combined with a resolution system whereby a unit fighting on one side of the table causes a unit on the other side of the table to fight more slowly. Blasts and Templates are gone but instead we have piles of weapons with random numbers of shots. Independent characters are gone but instead characters have to stay within 3" of a unit or else be shot to death . . . so they might as well have just left them in and increased coherency from 2" to 3". The psychic phase is simplified from 7th but it's simplified to the point that there's no strategic or tactical aspect at all, so we might as well have just gone back to 5th's method and have characters cast powers with Ld checks in the appropriate phase.

It just seems that they've yet to get to the core of the issue in terms of fixing 40k's clunkiness as a system.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/30 13:53:36


Post by: ccs


Deadnight wrote:


ccs wrote:
Deadnight wrote:

Everyone's 'best times' was right when they started and the ideal was just before then.


Having started in the closing days of RT I'm going to disagree with that.
There was nothing "before" 40k wise.
RT is definitely not my favorite edition nor does it include any of my "best times".

I'd prefer the 3rd - 5th era with some of 8th/9th.


Please see my edit. What i wrote poorly conveyed my thoughts; I meant to imply 'back when you started and the first few years in the hobby' by what I said. But hey, internet.


Still disagree as my 3rd-5th ed days were a decade + away. Hardly my 1st few years of the hobby.
He'll, as my HOBBY is miniature wargaming, RT & 2e aren't even my first few years - merely my earliest concerning 40k

Don't get me wrong, obviously since I've spent 30+ years & $$$$$ in the 40k universe I had enough fun with RT/2e.....
And here in 8th/9th I've had fun (and the models are better than ever overall).

But my favorite period, when I had the most fun, was 3-early 5th.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/30 14:51:07


Post by: Insectum7


Deadnight wrote:


ccs wrote:
Deadnight wrote:

Everyone's 'best times' was right when they started and the ideal was just before then.


Having started in the closing days of RT I'm going to disagree with that.
There was nothing "before" 40k wise.
RT is definitely not my favorite edition nor does it include any of my "best times".

I'd prefer the 3rd - 5th era with some of 8th/9th.


Please see my edit. What i wrote poorly conveyed my thoughts; I meant to imply 'back when you started and the first few years in the hobby' by what I said. But hey, internet.

Still incorrect. I started in 2nd and my best/favorite time was during 4th, about 10 years in.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/30 15:10:06


Post by: Deadnight


 Insectum7 wrote:
Deadnight wrote:


ccs wrote:
Deadnight wrote:

Everyone's 'best times' was right when they started and the ideal was just before then.


Having started in the closing days of RT I'm going to disagree with that.
There was nothing "before" 40k wise.
RT is definitely not my favorite edition nor does it include any of my "best times".

I'd prefer the 3rd - 5th era with some of 8th/9th.


Please see my edit. What i wrote poorly conveyed my thoughts; I meant to imply 'back when you started and the first few years in the hobby' by what I said. But hey, internet.

Still incorrect. I started in 2nd and my best/favorite time was during 4th, about 10 years in.


Fair enough. I guess I'm reading too much into my own, and my peer experience.

Appreciate your pov.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/30 15:15:08


Post by: Karol


10 years is "first few years" only when you are like 40 or something.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/30 15:29:26


Post by: chaos0xomega


 AnomanderRake wrote:
I may be marked a heretic and purged for this, but I'd argue the downward spiral started in 5th (right after Priestly & Co. left). Loss of options, statline bloat, the push to sell powerful new big models over fixing the stuff that existed, the push to make named characters better than generic characters, and the push to make new Space Marines over half of all releases all started in 5th.


Agreed. 4th was the last good edition IMO (I really like 8th, not so sure about 9th but haven't had a chance to play it really). 5th was boring, 6th and 7th were painful.



The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/30 16:26:58


Post by: Insectum7


Yeah 5th brought some real unfortunate things, imo. Return to TLOS/poor terrain mechanics, terrible multi-wound mechanics, the splitting of BA, DA, SW into their own codexes with accompanying unit-bloat, the eventual "Newcron reboot", the removal of lots of unit/army customization, more importance given to special characters and a dramatic increase in the prevalence on high AP weapons, which simultaneously gave rise to an increased prevalence of invuln saves (THSS Terminators gaining a 3++, for instance.)


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/30 16:54:48


Post by: Vaktathi


I don't think there's any edition of 40k that doesn't have massive, glaring failures. As tabletop wargames, they're all pretty bad taken on just their rules, they're not anything anyone would play or really develop these days without GW's IP behind it, same way most RPG's these days look little like D&D and its painfully mechanistic paradigm.

Each edition has had major problems both with core rules and codexes, as well as power and scale bloat. For my own part, and not having played 9th, I think late 3rd/early 4th was among the best for flavor and expression of lore in the rules, 5th was probably all around the best "tournament" edition (in terms of reasonable army sizes, limited rules to memorize, broad if imperfect meta balance, etc), with mid 2019 pre-SM supplement 8th probably being the best overall balanced in a faction meta sense.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/30 17:01:18


Post by: jaredb


I've played every edition beginning with 3rd. All are great in their own way, all had their own flaws. Just the nature of the beast. I do enjoy 9th the most so far (as does my club), but I did have a lot of fun in 7th with the super formations.


I remember playing with the playtest rules for 4th edition, and being outraged that you could always get 2 shots in half range for rapid-fire weapons even if you moved I thought that was too much firepower and would ruin the game. Oh how naive I was lol.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/30 17:04:11


Post by: A.T.


 Insectum7 wrote:
...the removal of lots of unit/army customization, more importance given to special characters and a dramatic increase in the prevalence on high AP weapons, which simultaneously gave rise to an increased prevalence of invuln saves (THSS Terminators gaining a 3++, for instance.)
That all started piecemeal in the latter half of 4th edition and became more standardized in 5th.

It's interesting to look at the codex releases around then as you can see distinct patterns in rule and balance conventions. In 4th you'd get a couple of similar books one after another before the goal posts move, whereas in 5th the books are all over the place. Makes me wonder if someone running oversight in the studio left or moved onto other projects, or if it's just a coincidence.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/30 17:42:18


Post by: Insectum7


A.T. wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
...the removal of lots of unit/army customization, more importance given to special characters and a dramatic increase in the prevalence on high AP weapons, which simultaneously gave rise to an increased prevalence of invuln saves (THSS Terminators gaining a 3++, for instance.)
That all started piecemeal in the latter half of 4th edition and became more standardized in 5th.

It's interesting to look at the codex releases around then as you can see distinct patterns in rule and balance conventions. In 4th you'd get a couple of similar books one after another before the goal posts move, whereas in 5th the books are all over the place. Makes me wonder if someone running oversight in the studio left or moved onto other projects, or if it's just a coincidence.
It's true, it did start at the tail end of 4th. I think the DA book was the first iirc. But the super-customization codexes prior to that shift were just fantastic. Peak codexes, if you ask me. Those first "proto-5th" codexes also didn't have the AP inflation that characterized later books in the era if I'm remembering correctly. The DA one was still a bit restrained iirc.

The only things I would introduce to the 4th ed (marine) books from the later ones would be the re-equipping marines with bolt pistols, frag and krak grenades by default, and the re-introduction of combat squads.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/30 18:03:19


Post by: ERJAK


Deadnight wrote:
 Wolflord Patrick wrote:
So, hear me out... While I'm a huge 40k fan, my best times playing the game were in the 3rd through 5th editions of the game. I'd still gladly go back and play any of those today. Here's why I think the downward spiral started in 6th edition and why I think they're desperately trying to recover still from it.



Take off the rose tints Patrick.

The downward spiral began right after they decided to do a warhammer game, but in spaaaace back in thr 80s.

Everyone's 'best times' was when they started and the first couple of years in the hobby, whenever that was. and the ideal was just before then. There'll be folks who say 6th and 7th were the best, and folks that'll say 2nd. For me, I joined in 3rd, 4th was the edition I was most familiar with and to my mates who I played with, 2nd was the best to them, and everything since then was a disappointment.

The game back then was just as broken and frustrating as now, just in a different way.

And for all the doom regarding the doom spiral, the models have never been better, there have never been more ways of playing anf enjoying gw games, and *glances at share prices*, gw are doing well.

Edit: better phrases.


As much as I think 'downward sprial' is hogwash and 5th edition is the best is a circlejerk (half the comments about how great 5th was include the asterisk "so long as you ignore half the codexes in the edition" 6th and 7th were still objectively terrible. I started in 6th and still have 0 fond memories of either ruleset. 8th and 9th are head and shoulders above the dumpster fire that was 6th and 7th.

People on Dakka like to pretend that stuff like the current Admech codex can even compare to how busted 6th and 7th got but they forget that on release, Eldar could table all but 3 factions without losing a single MODEL in some cases.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/30 19:09:03


Post by: chaos0xomega


 Vaktathi wrote:
I don't think there's any edition of 40k that doesn't have massive, glaring failures. As tabletop wargames, they're all pretty bad taken on just their rules, they're not anything anyone would play or really develop these days without GW's IP behind it, same way most RPG's these days look little like D&D and its painfully mechanistic paradigm.

Each edition has had major problems both with core rules and codexes, as well as power and scale bloat. For my own part, and not having played 9th, I think late 3rd/early 4th was among the best for flavor and expression of lore in the rules, 5th was probably all around the best "tournament" edition (in terms of reasonable army sizes, limited rules to memorize, broad if imperfect meta balance, etc), with mid 2019 pre-SM supplement 8th probably being the best overall balanced in a faction meta sense.


I admit 4th was my first real experiences with the game and my lack of familiarity with other rulesets at the time has likely significantly colored my perspective of how good the 40k ruleset was. I diversified into other rules beginning with 5th which is where I began to realize the poor quality of GWs game design in general, and possibly influenced my perception of 5th edition.

That being said, again, I thought 8th was great - not perfect, mind you, but a big improvement (though after the dumpster fire that 6th/7th was my perspective might be colored by having entered 8th with bargain basement expectations and being pleasantly surprised to find not just a serviceable ruleset, but one I actually enjoyed playing).

Again, have not played 9th, it seems to continue on the trajectory established by 8th with what seem to be solid improvements in some areas of the game design - but every now and again I see threads or posts along the lines of "9th is a failure" or whatever and I have to wonder if it isn't actually a step backwards.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/30 19:49:27


Post by: Insectum7


^I liked 8th quite a bit, overall. Riiight up until SM 2.0, just prior to which I felt it had decent balance and was in a good spot. In fact I felt the SM 2.0 book itself was good, and would have been in a solid place. Those supplements though. . . Just wrecked it.

Since then too many changes for 9th have been . . . Not good. Which is too bad, I had high hopes when they started saying they were reintroducing real LOS blocking terrain in the form of Obscuring, along with some other terrain and cover diversity.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/30 20:05:10


Post by: lord_blackfang


6th started the metagame issues, but 5th started the gameplay issues. The doing away of LOS blocking terrain coupled with the start of the shooting arms race of dumb overgunned models and kill-oriented scenarios that together practically pushed the movement phase into irrelevancy


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/30 20:29:15


Post by: moreorless


Deadnight wrote:
moreorless wrote:
Deadnight wrote:
I disagree with the notion that the 'downward spiral' was some recent phenomenon that can be pinpointed to a specific moment in time. Or that the 40k ecosystem of games and media is somehow 'worse now than it was then. It'll differ for everyone.

Plenty folks would have said that for third too and I've seen enough posts from people saying they've had more fun with 8th ed 40k than they've had in years to simply assume we are living in 'lesser days' now.


I do tend to think a big issue has been the rise of the more competitive side of the game which has come to dominate most discussion on the net and is always more likely to expose weakensses in the rules.


I dunno. That side of it has always been there and I don't think it's any 'worse'. It's not a recent phenomenon at all. I remember portent (pre warseer) back twenty odd years ago and the same chats being centred around the competitive game, rules exploits and list building for advantage dominated then,as now.
Back then gw leaked like a siv. You'd know everything in a codex three to six months before release- all the broken builds would be mathed out even before the codex hit the shelves. Fun times!
.


I mean its been there to some degree but to me it seems to have become totally dominant in more recent years, the idea of playing the game without using maximum exploits for whatever faction your using doesnt even seem to be considered anymore in most online discussion.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/30 20:36:09


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Me in 4th: "I want to run all Russes."
The internet: "idk, be careful, that list is pretty strong."

Me in 6th: "I want to run all Russes"
The internet: "omg noob y you want to lose every game, you need to change your list or never win"


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/30 21:08:38


Post by: NinthMusketeer


moreorless wrote:
Deadnight wrote:
moreorless wrote:
Deadnight wrote:
I disagree with the notion that the 'downward spiral' was some recent phenomenon that can be pinpointed to a specific moment in time. Or that the 40k ecosystem of games and media is somehow 'worse now than it was then. It'll differ for everyone.

Plenty folks would have said that for third too and I've seen enough posts from people saying they've had more fun with 8th ed 40k than they've had in years to simply assume we are living in 'lesser days' now.


I do tend to think a big issue has been the rise of the more competitive side of the game which has come to dominate most discussion on the net and is always more likely to expose weakensses in the rules.


I dunno. That side of it has always been there and I don't think it's any 'worse'. It's not a recent phenomenon at all. I remember portent (pre warseer) back twenty odd years ago and the same chats being centred around the competitive game, rules exploits and list building for advantage dominated then,as now.
Back then gw leaked like a siv. You'd know everything in a codex three to six months before release- all the broken builds would be mathed out even before the codex hit the shelves. Fun times!
.


I mean its been there to some degree but to me it seems to have become totally dominant in more recent years, the idea of playing the game without using maximum exploits for whatever faction your using doesnt even seem to be considered anymore in most online discussion.
IMO; 40k is really popular in the US, so US toxicompetitive culture bleeds in.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/30 22:08:37


Post by: AnomanderRake


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
...IMO; 40k is really popular in the US, so US toxicompetitive culture bleeds in.


I don't know if it's Americans in general, or if it's very specifically the toxicompetitive culture of all the ex-Warmachine players that marinated in the crucible of Page Five and only ever having to talk to people who were as competitive as they were, and then when PP nerfed all their competitive Bane-spam/Haley/whatever lists in Mk.3 (the same summer of the 8e launch) they all decided it was time to go back to 40k and piss on someone else's parade.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/30 22:14:37


Post by: Sim-Life


 AnomanderRake wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
...IMO; 40k is really popular in the US, so US toxicompetitive culture bleeds in.


I don't know if it's Americans in general, or if it's very specifically the toxicompetitive culture of all the ex-Warmachine players that marinated in the crucible of Page Five and only ever having to talk to people who were as competitive as they were, and then when PP nerfed all their competitive Bane-spam/Haley/whatever lists in Mk.3 (the same summer of the 8e launch) they all decided it was time to go back to 40k and piss on someone else's parade.


So now we're pretending 40k was a blissful paradice of gentlemanly sportsmanship until those filthy Warmachine players turned up? 40k has had Those Guys in the community forever, dont even try to say otherwise. I play with a guy who was a GW manager 30 years ago tell me stories about Those Guys.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/30 22:24:01


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Sim-Life wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
...IMO; 40k is really popular in the US, so US toxicompetitive culture bleeds in.


I don't know if it's Americans in general, or if it's very specifically the toxicompetitive culture of all the ex-Warmachine players that marinated in the crucible of Page Five and only ever having to talk to people who were as competitive as they were, and then when PP nerfed all their competitive Bane-spam/Haley/whatever lists in Mk.3 (the same summer of the 8e launch) they all decided it was time to go back to 40k and piss on someone else's parade.


So now we're pretending 40k was a blissful paradice of gentlemanly sportsmanship until those filthy Warmachine players turned up? 40k has had Those Guys in the community forever, dont even try to say otherwise. I play with a guy who was a GW manager 30 years ago tell me stories about Those Guys.


I think Warmachine, for all its strengths, concentrated a lot of That Guy energy in one small place where it could feed on itself and was rewarded, and when Mk.3 happened and they all went back over to 40k they took those attitudes with them. 40k has had degenerate, toxic, competitive people for time out of mind, yes, definitely. That said if you thought you noticed a downward shift about five years ago that wasn't a figment of your imagination; I think the return of people from the degenerate, toxic, competitive echo chamber that was Mk.2 Warmachine did have a broader effect on 40k.

Though it's really nice being one of the few people who still plays Warmachine; the obnoxious people all got angry that their specific tournament lists didn't work any more and left, and it's much more relaxed now.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/31 05:35:17


Post by: ccs


Karol wrote:
10 years is "first few years" only when you are like 40 or something.


Well, maybe if I were an Elf or something ....
But speaking from experience as a 40-or-something Human though? No, it's not. It's just a long time ago.



The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/31 06:03:47


Post by: Karol


I am 15. if someone tells someone my age, that maybe in a span of 10 years, my army will maybe be good for 3 months, the entice to play drops substentially. And makes picking armies which aren't on the mid to good tier for most of the time a foolish option. Sadly people on forums and the sellers at the store tell you to buy what you like. And I think the player retention w40k has shows it very well.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/31 06:44:51


Post by: kirotheavenger


When 8th first dropped, I quite liked it.
I didn't like some aspects like LoS/terrain, blasts, and other rules, but those were all workable.
I actually liked strategems at the start of 8th. Back then you only had the single reroll, auto pass morale, and interupt the fight phase. It felt like that little sprinkle of seasoning you could use to nudge the game or mitigate the randomness of those few high-impact dice rolls.

But as the codexes came out, boy was I proved wrong. This is when the bloat started off. In hindsight, it wasn't even that bad.
Strategems in particular became a mess. There's just way too much to handle (I basically discarded all by my favourite 5), and they became so powerful the right "gotcha" could decide the game there and then.
Then we get to Space Marines 2.0 and it's clear they're just throwing more and more garbage on the fire as it balloons into an absolute mess.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/31 07:00:32


Post by: aphyon


@Wolflord

There is a reason why i started the active and rather expansive thread on older editions.

The basic premise is that for general rules/USRs 5th had almost everything correct, but certain rules from other compatible editions would have worked better in the framework of 5th.

That's why my group, Rakes and Mezmorkis prohammer project tries to unify the best rules into 5th edition.

When it comes to superheavies and flyers that i see many people complain about- FW actually had very balanced rules for normal 40K play for those units, but also included the "opponents consent/heads up" consideration.

They were not game breaking

On the subject of flyers. the move onto the table in your opponents movement phase was kinda of distracting to game flow so what 6th/7th did right was put them into the normal movement phase. what they did wrong was increase the armor across the board because they started out these "flyers" and fast skimmers in 5th where the light armor would not encourage people to buy them. valkyries were the same AV as a land speeder (10/10/10) in fact almost everything was including superheavies. like the marauders (bomber or destroyer) except for "specialized units" like the thunderhawk that was AV 12/12/10 or the vulture that was AV 11/10/10.

What they also did wrong was remove the ability of jump units to assault flyers and put in the stupid vector lock rule where as normal immobilized results caused a flyer to auto crash. so they were very hard to hit without dedicated AA units (that FW also sold, thats how the skyray started life) but were very fragile.

When it came to titans it was much the same. a warhound had a base cost and then you had to buy the weapons separately pushing the points cost upwards of 800. but there was no such thing as "D/destroyer or macro" weapons as examples a twin turbo laser was a heavy 2 3" small blast S9 AP2 (a las cannon blast template) with a 72" range VS X2 5" templates with "D" at 96" and a vulcan mega bolter was a heavy 10 assault cannon with rending with a 36" range. the titans also could only move 6" if they wanted to fire all the guns or 12" if they wanted to fire 1

It was very much a centerpiece model, it was a bit hard to kill but also didn't push out to much damage as it was also BS marine (4)

lord_blackfang wrote:6th started the metagame issues, but 5th started the gameplay issues. The doing away of LOS blocking terrain coupled with the start of the shooting arms race of dumb overgunned models and kill-oriented scenarios that together practically pushed the movement phase into irrelevancy



Funny thing is that 5th was the last thing that Andy Chambers set the groundwork before he left the game design studio. interestingly when he made the rules for dust he brought back the LOS blocking area terrain but conformed it to the 4" standard blocks for that game instead of the 6" for 40K when determining how far into area terrain you could see in/out

Karol wrote:I am 15. if someone tells someone my age, that maybe in a span of 10 years, my army will maybe be good for 3 months, the entice to play drops substentially. And makes picking armies which aren't on the mid to good tier for most of the time a foolish option. Sadly people on forums and the sellers at the store tell you to buy what you like. And I think the player retention w40k has shows it very well.


From what i have read of your experiences it saddens me you are stuck where you are, if you played with our group your GKs could use whichever codex you liked for 5th and still be viable, fun to play and not ever be forced to chase the meta. my preference is still the 3rd ed demon hunter codex as it has the best feel for what the GKs should be. .


Small edit @Wolflored

6th ed was the death of 40K in my area. it quite literally killed the game at the FLGS, the only saving grace for 7th was the release of the mechanicus and a few great new models for each faction

So i agree that's where the downhill started to pick up speed.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/31 07:07:53


Post by: Karol


I am trying to think more general. I mean if someone is lets say 14. starts at the mid or end of 8th. And now they have a year of 9th. I think there is a good chance they would quit, no matter where they play. Some armies are just not fun to play. They sometimes can make tournament lists, like lets say CWE or Chaos soups, but if you want to play a csm army with actual csm in it, then you better really like csm of the nurgle kind wearing termintor suits.

But GW is making money, so I guess the way they do things works well enough.



The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/31 07:18:32


Post by: Deadnight


AnomanderRake wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
...IMO; 40k is really popular in the US, so US toxicompetitive culture bleeds in.


I don't know if it's Americans in general, or if it's very specifically the toxicompetitive culture of all the ex-Warmachine players that marinated in the crucible of Page Five and only ever having to talk to people who were as competitive as they were, and then when PP nerfed all their competitive Bane-spam/Haley/whatever lists in Mk.3 (the same summer of the 8e launch) they all decided it was time to go back to 40k and piss on someone else's parade.


So now we're pretending 40k was a blissful paradice of gentlemanly sportsmanship until those filthy Warmachine players turned up? 40k has had Those Guys in the community forever, dont even try to say otherwise. I play with a guy who was a GW manager 30 years ago tell me stories about Those Guys.


I think Warmachine, for all its strengths, concentrated a lot of That Guy energy in one small place where it could feed on itself and was rewarded, and when Mk.3 happened and they all went back over to 40k they took those attitudes with them. 40k has had degenerate, toxic, competitive people for time out of mind, yes, definitely. That said if you thought you noticed a downward shift about five years ago that wasn't a figment of your imagination; I think the return of people from the degenerate, toxic, competitive echo chamber that was Mk.2 Warmachine did have a broader effect on 40k.



I think.youre on to something in some ways. I do remember anecdotes back in the day of folks loving the fact that all the competitives had migrated over to wmh leaving them to enjoy their 40k so there is that.

But A lot of those guys who came to wmh 'because it was a competitive game' came from 40k in the first place, in fairness. Wmh did really well from around 2010 to maybe 2015, or 2016. That's the tail end of 5th, 6th and maybe a bit of 7th. 8th and onwards was 2017. In fairness, a lot of people came back for 8th, and a lot of people enjoyed 8th, so again, i don't think 'downward spiral' is entirely fair here but my perspective on 8th era is less centred around rules and Competitive play and more around casual play, spec games and painting.

That said, I do remember when aos came about, with all the auras etc I referred to it lovingly as 'homeopathic warmachine' and gw have since taken to the 'spend a resource' mechanic and 'led by named characters' approach in their other games that arguably warmachine broke a lot of ground with. I think though this largely reflects a shift in game design philosophy across the industry (they all feed off of each other) rather than 'those filthy wmh'ers coming back. Could this 'change' be what people are referring to, rather than 'downward spiral', as lets face it, game design is different now than it was 20 years ago.

This also doesn't account for people leaving entirely or new people joining (and in fairness, wmh has problems with the latter, and has done so for years).

This does imply though that before the wmh exodus in the early '10s, (so 5th ed and before...) those tfgs were in the 40k ecosystem, during what is regarded by this thread as before the 'downward spiral' and that they were out of the 40k ecosystem during 6th and 7th,which a lot of people seem to regard poorly and at least here, regarded it as 40k as its worst. For me, I loved wmh during that era. It was, imo it's strongest era. Looking back, it was colossals that were a turning point for me and that was around 2014/15 I think.

It's an interesting perspective anomander. There is some truth to it, I think. Thanks!

ccs wrote:
Karol wrote:
10 years is "first few years" only when you are like 40 or something.


Well, maybe if I were an Elf or something ....
But speaking from experience as a 40-or-something Human though? No, it's not. It's just a long time ago.



While I've got loads of models and some socks that are older than karol here, in some ways he's not wrong.

Ten years in wargaming terms, or even corporate terns weirdly isn't that long though in some frames of references.

People still talk about finecast etc ot some other gw failure or trot out a twenty year old quote from the studio like it was yesterday. I often catch myself thinking about specific things and realising 'hang on, that was ten/twenty years ago!'


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/31 07:23:17


Post by: Lord_Valorion


So many doomsayers. I liked 6th and 7th editon. Had my best games then.
I started with 4th edition.


And don't talk about Warmachine. This abomination of a game and its disciples ruined our FLGS with their attitude. Now this shop is magic and boardgames only. I hate Warmachine and its players like Sister of battle hates a heretic.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/31 07:37:53


Post by: Grimtuff


 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
...IMO; 40k is really popular in the US, so US toxicompetitive culture bleeds in.


I don't know if it's Americans in general, or if it's very specifically the toxicompetitive culture of all the ex-Warmachine players that marinated in the crucible of Page Five and only ever having to talk to people who were as competitive as they were, and then when PP nerfed all their competitive Bane-spam/Haley/whatever lists in Mk.3 (the same summer of the 8e launch) they all decided it was time to go back to 40k and piss on someone else's parade.


So now we're pretending 40k was a blissful paradice of gentlemanly sportsmanship until those filthy Warmachine players turned up? 40k has had Those Guys in the community forever, dont even try to say otherwise. I play with a guy who was a GW manager 30 years ago tell me stories about Those Guys.


I think Warmachine, for all its strengths, concentrated a lot of That Guy energy in one small place where it could feed on itself and was rewarded, and when Mk.3 happened and they all went back over to 40k they took those attitudes with them. 40k has had degenerate, toxic, competitive people for time out of mind, yes, definitely. That said if you thought you noticed a downward shift about five years ago that wasn't a figment of your imagination; I think the return of people from the degenerate, toxic, competitive echo chamber that was Mk.2 Warmachine did have a broader effect on 40k.

Though it's really nice being one of the few people who still plays Warmachine; the obnoxious people all got angry that their specific tournament lists didn't work any more and left, and it's much more relaxed now.


Gotta agree with this. There has been a certain paradigm shift in 40k, one that is now egged on by GW themselves with their things like the Metawatch articles etc. This was not the case 5 or so years ago and certainly not 10+ years ago. Sure, GW had tournaments; but the game was never, ever built for them- it was a kickabout with your mates type of game, yet the tourney crowd were kept contained and anyone who tried to powergame was self-policed to an extent by communities and shunned as "that guy".

This is what was the (original) main appeal of WMH was and the (correct) message of Page 5- they were the counterculture to GW. No more pulling of punches, give it your all etc. But we all know where this went, as an obvious piece of satire (in the same call to arms they say they're going to deplete the world of metal by 2010 and run that reinvented wheel (that is now covered in spikes) over your nan's house) it went over a lot of people's heads and we all know how that went. But I digress...

WMH had the strength of its rules behind it. GW didn't (and still doesn't). One of the greatest joys for me in WMH was taking units that the community had considered "trash" and doing well with them, because it broke their collective brains trying to work out how you did it. I remember the time when one of the top players won the annual tournament at Lock & Load with a Khador list with Assault Kommandos and the community collectively broke trying to comprehend how something they had deemed as something destined for the bin to have won the biggest tournament of the year.
But that there was representative of the strength of WMHs rules, you could do stuff like that as the depth of the rules allowed you to.

Where am I going with this? So, 8th drops and Mk3 buggers itself up, resulting in a mass exodus from WMH simultaneously with a bunch of ex-40k players and holdouts coming back to 8th. A lot of the former (and I'd maybe argue not just them, there's also the culture of MMO games like Fortnite, LOL etc. that has infected 40k as well. You can see it in the nomenclature certain players use) bring the attitude of the previous game with them, which is fine in a culture that supports it and a game that has strong rules to back it up. GW has never ever had either of those things, but now they are attempting to court them for whatever reason. "Metawatch". Oh please, feth the feth off with that...


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/31 08:17:11


Post by: aphyon


 Lord_Valorion wrote:
So many doomsayers. I liked 6th and 7th editon. Had my best games then.
I started with 4th edition.


And don't talk about Warmachine. This abomination of a game and its disciples ruined our FLGS with their attitude. Now this shop is magic and boardgames only. I hate Warmachine and its players like Sister of battle hates a heretic.


I have seen those toxic players myself, which is why our WMH group is a totally casual group who play the models we like without concern for theme or tier lists. core rules wise MKIII is the best edition the game has ever been, but of course the page 5 rule is gone so all the "hardcore" comp gamers hate it.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/31 09:44:51


Post by: Ketara


 Vaktathi wrote:
I don't think there's any edition of 40k that doesn't have massive, glaring failures. As tabletop wargames, they're all pretty bad taken on just their rules, they're not anything anyone would play or really develop these days without GW's IP behind it, same way most RPG's these days look little like D&D and its painfully mechanistic paradigm.

Each edition has had major problems both with core rules and codexes, as well as power and scale bloat. For my own part, and not having played 9th, I think late 3rd/early 4th was among the best for flavor and expression of lore in the rules, 5th was probably all around the best "tournament" edition (in terms of reasonable army sizes, limited rules to memorize, broad if imperfect meta balance, etc), with mid 2019 pre-SM supplement 8th probably being the best overall balanced in a faction meta sense.


I think that they key is probably buried in this answer here.What it inherently boils down to is what you liked best about the game. Different editions emphasisted different things.

3rd edition was probably the most flavorful and had the best written lore in a 'modern' format. If army building choice and new fluff, and general interesting units/campaigns in a vaguely sensible context were your thing? It wins and was the best. Everything from the Eye of Terror campaign with the Lost and the Damned on down to the first Daemonhunters codex. It was where Warhammer broke out from the patchwork clunkiness of Rogue Trader and 2nd edition to become the first well developed edition in the sense of the setting. And it did it well. Sure, the rules were a bit confusing at times, and nothing was streamlined for balance, but it felt like great fun and extremely original.

If you liked a balanced and simplified game to play with your friends, where most codexes had a chance of winning equally and you could throw any combination of units on the table and have a decent chance? Early 5th was the closest to that. It didn't quite reach that lofty goal (no-one was running a Hellion army), but it came closest. It had some irritating core rulebook issues, but before Grey Knights and Space Wolves hit the field, the best thing that could be thrown down as a power unit was a Lash Prince. Which whilst challenging was hardly OP in the way that 6th/7th edition IG/Eldar spam was. It gave probably the smoothest and simplest playing experience.

If you want the full experience of the weirder/whackier aspects of the lore deployed on the battlefield, with psykers and super-heavies and flyers and bat gak crazy stuff? And you like having so many plastic choices and ease of access? This edition is probably the best yet. They've spent some time streamlining 7th/8th edition because all those were clunky as hell and arrived here at 9th. It's still not perfect, but it's worked out enough kinks now that the game isn't a hot mess. Sure, the rules are everywhere, the fluff is almost copy paste Mary suedom, and you have to keep your hand in or completely lose what's going on. But if you do that, you've never had so much choice!

If, on the other hand, you wanted a taster of the options/zaniness of 9th but without all the multiple rules changes and full on titan incorporation? You'll prefer 6th. That was the primary crossing point between 5th and 9th that worked best. Psykers? You got 'em. More terrain? Sure. More allies? Why not. More missions. Got you. 6th was the crossing point between 5th and everything that came later. It suffered from horrendous codex creep, but in terms of choices? It was the closest to the current edition whilst still retaining the feel and style of the older editions.

Few people ever say '4th/7th/8th' was my favourite though. That's because virtually everything those editions did was done better elsewhere.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/31 10:43:09


Post by: scarletsquig


Age of Sigmar is a glimpse into what a streamlined 40k could look like, with 3rd edition it's becoming quite refined without adding much extra rules bloat (some extra basic actions for monsters and heroes). Codex creep hasn't been much of a thing, it can be played casually or competitively with a lot of variety, it has a bit of a buff-stacking meta going on, but one that at least makes sense and allows you to make a powerful army that looks cohesive.

I'd recommend a switch of system for anyone really frustrated with 40k, which to me looks like it needs a 3rd edition style rework, too much has been added, the elements of the game not represented physically by miniatures (stratagems, command points, formations etc.) take away from what should be the focus of a wargame.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/31 10:46:17


Post by: xerxeskingofking


moreorless wrote:


I mean its been there to some degree but to me it seems to have become totally dominant in more recent years, the idea of playing the game without using maximum exploits for whatever faction your using doesnt even seem to be considered anymore in most online discussion.


honestly, i think thats partly due to the demographics of online discussion, in that this it tends to appeal more to the more "serious", competitive players, not the "beer and pretzels" crowd (or "cola and crisps" crowd if your underage). I am sure that compared to the average model buying customer, the average dakkanaut is somewhat older, more invested (mentally and financially) in the game, and more willing and able to play at a "high level" rather than just paint what looks cool and throw it on the table, and their attitude to the game and discussion of the game reflects that. Not ALL of us, obviously, but I'd bet real money our demographics are skewed compared to the GW "baseline". So, the online discussion (as it normally is) gets dominated by a passionate minority that is strongly invested, while the less invested majority just go out and play, not really bothering the online world too much.



That, and if you in a tactics thread and someone asks "what is the best approach for X?", naturally the other posters are going to respond with the thier best meta-chasing answers and explain why they should do Y because thats the best approach to X, or that X just isn't that competitive, and that if they do that, it would be sub-optimal compared to doing the same thing with Z instead.. thats....why the question was asked in the first place. Becuase they wanted to play better, to better understand the game and improve their playing ability.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/31 11:40:58


Post by: aphyon


scarletsquig wrote:
Age of Sigmar is a glimpse into what a streamlined 40k could look like, with 3rd edition it's becoming quite refined without adding much extra rules bloat (some extra basic actions for monsters and heroes). Codex creep hasn't been much of a thing, it can be played casually or competitively with a lot of variety, it has a bit of a buff-stacking meta going on, but one that at least makes sense and allows you to make a powerful army that looks cohesive.

I'd recommend a switch of system for anyone really frustrated with 40k, which to me looks like it needs a 3rd edition style rework, too much has been added, the elements of the game not represented physically by miniatures (stratagems, command points, formations etc.) take away from what should be the focus of a wargame.



I agree switch systems by switching OFF GW entirely.

Want some classic warhammer fantasy battles? play kings of war or mantic in general since they have their versions of everything GW does at half the price-warpath(40K), deadzone(kill teams), aramda(dread fleet) dreadball(blood bowl)
Want some epic 40K? or battlefleet gothic? loads of 3rd party minis/support are available
Want some WWII? flames of war or bolt action has you set up
Want to play around in the Star Wars universe? you have legion, X-win and armada
Want some weird war II with better written rules by the former lead of the GW game development team and great minis? play DUST 1947
Want some non-40K 6mm gameplay? try classic battletech it has just as much if not more lore than 40K , a huge line of minis and a solid low model count rules set thats been stable for 30+ years
Need some cyberpunk in your life? play some infinity.

There is a great big world of great miniature games out there not made by GW.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/31 13:57:53


Post by: Karol


The problem is that stores often only run GW games, or even just w40k and maybe some AoS. Meaning you can't just switch systems, because no one at the store can play them.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/31 14:09:11


Post by: Daedalus81


 Insectum7 wrote:
^I liked 8th quite a bit, overall. Riiight up until SM 2.0, just prior to which I felt it had decent balance and was in a good spot. In fact I felt the SM 2.0 book itself was good, and would have been in a solid place. Those supplements though. . . Just wrecked it.

Since then too many changes for 9th have been . . . Not good. Which is too bad, I had high hopes when they started saying they were reintroducing real LOS blocking terrain in the form of Obscuring, along with some other terrain and cover diversity.


I think people's experience with 8th varied widely with what missions you used and whether or not you played ITC as well as what style you preferred.

9th is really uniform in experience, but lots of people still haven't played that much and it shows. Also, the Maelstrom rules haven't been talked about beyond maybe the first week we saw them.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/31 14:21:55


Post by: Karol


I think people expiriance in 8th mostly depended on what army they had and played through out 8th. Someone not playing marines can say that 8th when bad with 2.0 marines, on the other hand someone who get to "enjoy" playing Iron Hands pre 2.0, will say that the game only became fun when 2.0 dropped.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/31 14:58:54


Post by: Gert


Karol wrote:
I think people expiriance in 8th mostly depended on what army they had and played through out 8th. Someone not playing marines can say that 8th when bad with 2.0 marines, on the other hand someone who get to "enjoy" playing Iron Hands pre 2.0, will say that the game only became fun when 2.0 dropped.

That's how all editions of the game work....
This isn't a new concept. If you support Poland in the World Cup but the team gets knocked out at the group stages you would say it wasn't fun to watch, whereas if I support Scotland and they win I would say it was fun.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/31 16:07:44


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Gert wrote:
Karol wrote:
I think people expiriance in 8th mostly depended on what army they had and played through out 8th. Someone not playing marines can say that 8th when bad with 2.0 marines, on the other hand someone who get to "enjoy" playing Iron Hands pre 2.0, will say that the game only became fun when 2.0 dropped.

That's how all editions of the game work....
This isn't a new concept. If you support Poland in the World Cup but the team gets knocked out at the group stages you would say it wasn't fun to watch, whereas if I support Scotland and they win I would say it was fun.


How much money did you have to pay to buy the Polish team? How much time did you spend painting them?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote:
The problem is that stores often only run GW games, or even just w40k and maybe some AoS. Meaning you can't just switch systems, because no one at the store can play them.


Chicken/egg. You can't play something different because nobody plays it. If you did, someone would play it, and then other people could switch systems. It takes perseverance, and some people are never going to change because for whatever reason they like 40k, but if you're not in a GW store where playing other games isn't allowed I think it's still worth the effort to try.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/31 16:32:09


Post by: Insectum7


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
^I liked 8th quite a bit, overall. Riiight up until SM 2.0, just prior to which I felt it had decent balance and was in a good spot. In fact I felt the SM 2.0 book itself was good, and would have been in a solid place. Those supplements though. . . Just wrecked it.

Since then too many changes for 9th have been . . . Not good. Which is too bad, I had high hopes when they started saying they were reintroducing real LOS blocking terrain in the form of Obscuring, along with some other terrain and cover diversity.


I think people's experience with 8th varied widely with what missions you used and whether or not you played ITC as well as what style you preferred.

9th is really uniform in experience, but lots of people still haven't played that much and it shows. Also, the Maelstrom rules haven't been talked about beyond maybe the first week we saw them.
I could care less about the missions. Most of what I dislike isn't mission related. Lasguns and Bolters being equally effective against Orks. 2w rolled out for Loyalists but forcing CSM to wait for it. 2w loyalists to begin with. Smaller standard table size. Smoke Launchers moved to a Stratagem. Necron Warriors dropping even further below SMs in resilience. Etc.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/31 16:39:32


Post by: moreorless


 AnomanderRake wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
...IMO; 40k is really popular in the US, so US toxicompetitive culture bleeds in.


I don't know if it's Americans in general, or if it's very specifically the toxicompetitive culture of all the ex-Warmachine players that marinated in the crucible of Page Five and only ever having to talk to people who were as competitive as they were, and then when PP nerfed all their competitive Bane-spam/Haley/whatever lists in Mk.3 (the same summer of the 8e launch) they all decided it was time to go back to 40k and piss on someone else's parade.


I mean to be fair I don't want to play holier than thou, 40K being competitive is a large part of the attraction but I think its much less broken and indeed much more varied as a game is thats not all there is. I mean I love obsessing over detailed rules looking to maxmise my armies effectiveness as much as the next guy but the start point generally tends to me that I want to play with certain units that I think are cool and making those units as effective as possible is were the fun is.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/31 17:00:07


Post by: Karol


 AnomanderRake wrote:


How much money did you have to pay to buy the Polish team? How much time did you spend painting them?

How much do you know about hooligan culture in eastern europe, because it is a rather long topic. Often you get born in to being a fan of specific teams and players. It is really a serious business. You can get in to real trouble if you decide to wear the wrong colour of scarf durning winter. There is a reason why place like Cracow are called the City of Knives.



Chicken/egg. You can't play something different because nobody plays it. If you did, someone would play it, and then other people could switch systems. It takes perseverance, and some people are never going to change because for whatever reason they like 40k, but if you're not in a GW store where playing other games isn't allowed I think it's still worth the effort to try.

Nah, it is not the people it is the store owners. They have a limited number of tables at stores, and they support games they sells. Maybe if you are friends with the owner you can intreduce something new to the store. But that kind of a thing, involves you being 30+ and knowing the owner your whole life. Then yes, you can get something like Infinity running at the store. If your 13-15 and come up to the store owners and tell him that you would like to play a store unsupported game with models you bought outside of the store, you will get a no or if you are really annoying , you may be shown the door. Plus if you struggle to afford w40k, investing in to a different, non store played system, may end up with you buying stuff and no one following. Specially if you have no friends. May as well burn the money, same effect less hassle with painting etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Gert wrote:

That's how all editions of the game work....
This isn't a new concept. If you support Poland in the World Cup but the team gets knocked out at the group stages you would say it wasn't fun to watch, whereas if I support Scotland and they win I would say it was fun.


Well that is true, no one tells you that when you start. Just as no one tells you stuff like, you picked csm do you know they have been unfun to play with for the last 3-4 editions? Although with that I am not that suprised. If I wanted to get rid of models clogging my shelfs or which are stuck at my home, I could imagine someone being willing to do anything to sell them.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/31 17:49:43


Post by: Gert


Karol wrote:
Well that is true, no one tells you that when you start. Just as no one tells you stuff like, you picked csm do you know they have been unfun to play with for the last 3-4 editions? Although with that I am not that suprised. If I wanted to get rid of models clogging my shelfs or which are stuck at my home, I could imagine someone being willing to do anything to sell them.

Considering a person who buys Warhammer models has the chance of never playing a game in their life, telling someone what is and isn't "good" in the current meta isn't required.
If the person asks then sure but otherwise the seller has no idea what the person intends to do with their purchase.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/07/31 20:19:51


Post by: ccs


Karol wrote:
The problem is that stores often only run GW games, or even just w40k and maybe some AoS. Meaning you can't just switch systems, because no one at the store can play them.


Are your stores opposed to these other games because they don't/won't sell them?
I understand, & can even support, the position of not allowing stuff you don't/won't stock being played. Afterall you probably don't want to provide a free showcase for something you won't be profiting from. EX; GW stores. You'd never go to a GW & expect to buy/play Infinity....

But if there was interest, would your stores stock, or could they at least order these other games?
Would they still be opposed to people playing these games there even if they only ordered stuff for two or three interested people?
Ex; The one local shop doesn't stock Star Wars Legion or Armada. But if you want it they'll order it for you. And they aren't opposed to the people they ordered it for playing it on their tables.
Another local shop doesn't stock Flames of War (15mm WWII). But they're perfectly fine with a few of us bringing it in & trying to build interest.






The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/01 09:26:01


Post by: Da Boss


I was 12 when I started playing and lived in the countryside outside a tiny village in Ireland. The nearest game store to me was 4 hours away in Dublin, and it had like 2 tables at the time. So I made my own table, made buildings out of packaging, cut rivers from cheap felt, dismantled a bit of an artificial christmas tree to make plants and made a bunch of trees and alien plants from trash. I also shelled out for a small box of model railway trees. Set it up in my bedroom that I shared with my brother and invited people from school around to play. We played for years like that. When I went to Uni I started a wargaming club with similar modest beginnings. I only started to play in a shop in my mid twenties when I lived in Dublin. You don't need a shop to be interested in Wargaming.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/01 11:40:35


Post by: Grimtuff


 Da Boss wrote:
I was 12 when I started playing and lived in the countryside outside a tiny village in Ireland. The nearest game store to me was 4 hours away in Dublin, and it had like 2 tables at the time. So I made my own table, made buildings out of packaging, cut rivers from cheap felt, dismantled a bit of an artificial christmas tree to make plants and made a bunch of trees and alien plants from trash. I also shelled out for a small box of model railway trees. Set it up in my bedroom that I shared with my brother and invited people from school around to play. We played for years like that. When I went to Uni I started a wargaming club with similar modest beginnings. I only started to play in a shop in my mid twenties when I lived in Dublin. You don't need a shop to be interested in Wargaming.


Same. 40k wasn't even my first exposure to mini gaming, board games like Legend of Zagor and Dark World were. Then my first wargame was a prepainted game called Havok. GW and 40k came along later after myself and my brother got directed there by a lady that worked at Woolworths when we came in looking for Havok minis (I feel I really dated myself with that paragraph there!).

And even then, I had more games at home (or at a friend's house) than at the GW store, mainly as it was in the nearest town and we lived in a village on the outskirts, so I could only get there on Saturdays or Sundays. Board was one of the old GW 4x4 ones (AKA two 2x4 sheets of mdf coloured green and sold at a markup! ) with polystyrene scenery and the cardboard ruins from the 40k 2nd ed box.

Didn't properly start going into GW on the regular until my mid to late teens.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/01 12:58:43


Post by: Sgt. Cortez


I'm in this hobby since 18 years. I think I had 6games that weren't at home of someone but in a GW or a Club.
Over time we stopped playing on the floor though, signs of getting old .


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/01 13:14:30


Post by: Gregor Samsa


Im sure the timeline is exactly as Rick Priestley alludes too: when the GW sales team started telling the GW design studio what to make and in order to pump business growth the 40k game system became impossible to manage.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/01 17:27:13


Post by: Strg Alt


 Gregor Samsa wrote:
Im sure the timeline is exactly as Rick Priestley alludes too: when the GW sales team started telling the GW design studio what to make and in order to pump business growth the 40k game system became impossible to manage.


In other words: A sales driven ruleset is inferior to one implemented by true hobbyists. Maybe 40K will get some day the same treatment WHFB got in the form of 9th Age.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/01 18:54:17


Post by: aphyon


 Strg Alt wrote:
 Gregor Samsa wrote:
Im sure the timeline is exactly as Rick Priestley alludes too: when the GW sales team started telling the GW design studio what to make and in order to pump business growth the 40k game system became impossible to manage.


In other words: A sales driven ruleset is inferior to one implemented by true hobbyists. Maybe 40K will get some day the same treatment WHFB got in the form of 9th Age.


It already has thanks to Mezmorkis prohammer project(and other similar unified rules made by fans), we definitely are not getting it from GW.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/01 20:14:33


Post by: Daedalus81


 Strg Alt wrote:
 Gregor Samsa wrote:
Im sure the timeline is exactly as Rick Priestley alludes too: when the GW sales team started telling the GW design studio what to make and in order to pump business growth the 40k game system became impossible to manage.


In other words: A sales driven ruleset is inferior to one implemented by true hobbyists. Maybe 40K will get some day the same treatment WHFB got in the form of 9th Age.


Just some comments from the 9th age forums:

This game is hard for beginners. You need to buy, assemble and paint a lot of miniatures that is problem number one. The second problem is that the rules are complicated. It simply takes too much effort to learn and too much time is spend looking up rules, rather than playing. It is even difficult for semi-regular players. Im the only one in my gaming group who still plays this game. The rest have switched to other more accessible games, and have to some extend brought me with them. Especially once we became dads we have less available time. Sometimes months go by without a game of T9A (we play something easier & faster like Warhammer Quest). When I finally get to play T9A it is against a stranger, since my friends have given up.


I couldn't agree more. Some elements of 9th Age are just over engineered. There is hardly any benefit from this additional level of complexity. It creates unnecessary obstacles for new players and keeps the target audience limited to people who can spend a lot of time for their hobby.


They also usually argue that T9A is well made, but all the balancing also makes it boring. More like chess (which is of course a bit of an exaggeration). In WHFB, you had more skewed lists that did one thing well and others bad. This is unbalanced and more rps, but also fun and flavorful. Also, the lists in T9A are more similar to each other. It's easier to predict what you're going to face.

I think they are correct in their criticism actually (to a degree) but that this is also the strengths of the system. It's balanced and player skill is more important. This obviously fits tournament players better. Since I like the competitive side, it also fits me although I can appreciate the other types of games. But one has to realize that these strengths is probably a good fit for a minority of players. I'm not saying that balance is bad, but good balance doesn't outweigh the other stuff if you're not part of the minority that appreciates a game like T9A.


On the rare occasions that I do get to play, I find the rules to be pretty confusing, I hope that my opponent knows the rules so we don't have to look stuff up constantly, and end up getting beat pretty badly most games because my opponents are able to play much more frequently and do know the rules better. I love the game, the players, and I love my army, but I too wish that the rules were simpler.




The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/01 20:28:57


Post by: AnomanderRake


Well, yeah. The defining characteristic of GW's games is that they emphasize clearing up the core rules at the expense of bloating the army book rules way out of control. Games like the 9th Age are harder to start playing, but way easier to keep playing once you've gotten over the initial bit of the learning curve because the army books are cleaner, more consistent, and don't get torn down and started over on a regular basis.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/01 21:08:05


Post by: Daedalus81


 AnomanderRake wrote:
Well, yeah. The defining characteristic of GW's games is that they emphasize clearing up the core rules at the expense of bloating the army book rules way out of control. Games like the 9th Age are harder to start playing, but way easier to keep playing once you've gotten over the initial bit of the learning curve because the army books are cleaner, more consistent, and don't get torn down and started over on a regular basis.


And creates problems growing the base so that you actually have people to play with. There's a balance. It's the same mindset that twisted the knife in Warmachine. Without stepping stones, model expansion, and fluff that connects people to the hobby you won't grow.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/01 23:56:21


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
Well, yeah. The defining characteristic of GW's games is that they emphasize clearing up the core rules at the expense of bloating the army book rules way out of control. Games like the 9th Age are harder to start playing, but way easier to keep playing once you've gotten over the initial bit of the learning curve because the army books are cleaner, more consistent, and don't get torn down and started over on a regular basis.


And creates problems growing the base so that you actually have people to play with. There's a balance. It's the same mindset that twisted the knife in Warmachine. Without stepping stones, model expansion, and fluff that connects people to the hobby you won't grow.


I don't think every single wargame needs to be a straightforward entry point into the genre; if you're trying to do that and you don't have the strength of IP of MCP or Star Wars you're going to be fighting the GW marketing juggernaut directly and getting squished. You won't be able to attract inexperienced players because they'll go for the more visible game first, and you won't be able to attract experienced players because you don't offer them something different from what the existing intro points already gave them. There's absolutely room for games to exist for people who are disillusioned with GW and want something more detailed with more stable rules. You're not going to make a GW-killer that way, but I'm really glad there are segments of the market that exist that aren't either GW or trying to ape GW. It's harder to get games, sure, but I don't think trying to go after the exact same audience as GW would make those games' playerbase any bigger.

I do agree with you that that's the mindset that killed Warmachine, but for different reasons; they started off as a niche game trying to target a segment of the market GW wasn't really going after, and had a lot of success, but as they got bigger they failed to pivot to making the game more accessible, so they weren't able to sustain that growth and overextended themselves and died when GW rolled over slightly and got the tournament people back. There are a lot of minis companies out there that aren't dying because they're not trying to fight GW directly, they're aiming at different markets and not trying to position themselves as the GW-killer.

This is also kind of why I stick around on this forum despite having largely quit 40k; I think without the grumblers people get the impression that GW is where wargaming starts and ends. They don't get exposed to other options or get to sit through people arguing about the differences between 40k and Warmachine, or 9th Age, or Infinity, or whatever else, and then when they get frustrated with GW they quit wargaming entirely instead of trying to find something they might like better. People need to be exposed to the existence of a broader world rather than just living in the 9e echo chamber (I've met people quitting 40k who have never heard of 30k and are unfamiliar with the concept that there are thirty years of different rulebooks written by different people for them to experiment with without ever having to buy another miniature).


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/02 05:31:52


Post by: Da-Rock


Hmmm, same arguments and complaints every new edition of the game and codex releases.

40k was stagnant for so many factions between 3rd and the beginning of 5th edition.

Most players complained then about how old their codex was and how the rules were outdated and boring.......GW makes changes = complaints.

I don't defend GW often, but I do complain about complainers who do the same thing every year no matter what.....

Yes, we all get it, you aren't satisfied and you have every right to complain followed by adapting or not buying expensive models and rules from GW.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/02 10:01:59


Post by: Karol


ccs wrote:
Karol wrote:
The problem is that stores often only run GW games, or even just w40k and maybe some AoS. Meaning you can't just switch systems, because no one at the store can play them.


Are your stores opposed to these other games because they don't/won't sell them?
I understand, & can even support, the position of not allowing stuff you don't/won't stock being played. Afterall you probably don't want to provide a free showcase for something you won't be profiting from. EX; GW stores. You'd never go to a GW & expect to buy/play Infinity....



I actually don't know that. The old stuff did order a ton of smaller scale historical stuff, but there was a closed circle of people playing huge battles after the closing hours, which I was not allowed to attened because of the alcohol+under 18=shop loses license. I would have to ask. The new store doesn't sell infinity models, but they do order big every 2 months for the people playing at the store. Plus the owner makes nice recasts he has a really nice looking IG army made out of a less sci fi looking infinity faction. It would for sure be worth to ask.


Most players complained then about how old their codex was and how the rules were outdated and boring.......GW makes changes = complaints.

Can't say about all the other factions, but the GK codex was a copy paste of the index with relics and stratagems added, and most stratagems added were copy past of the marine ones. But the PA book was nice, not a codex, but all GK players liked it. I didn't get it fast enough, to play it in 8th, because of covid and how slow GW delivers some books to stores. But I can't imagine playing GK without the PA book in 9th. It would be really really bad. Probably worse then 9th expiriance to be honest.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
I don't think every single wargame needs to be a straightforward entry point into the genre; if you're trying to do that and you don't have the strength of IP of MCP or Star Wars you're going to be fighting the GW marketing juggernaut directly and getting squished.

I think it comes down to cost. If w40k came out today had a starting cost of at best 700-800$, not including terrain, rules, paints etc. People would not be playing the game, no matter how good the models look like. A game can be complex and with a high skill cap, when it is about, lets say 10-20 models.

Even cutting cost is easier with GW. Want to buy a w40k army at 1/3 cost, buy resin locally. try to do the same for less know games, and there maybe no one doing recasts for them. Or they are doing them and you have to wait a month to get 2-3 models, because they have a 200 model back log from western buyers they have to send out first.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/02 18:29:18


Post by: AnomanderRake


Karol wrote:
...Even cutting cost is easier with GW. Want to buy a w40k army at 1/3 cost, buy resin locally. try to do the same for less know games, and there maybe no one doing recasts for them. Or they are doing them and you have to wait a month to get 2-3 models, because they have a 200 model back log from western buyers they have to send out first.


There's a lot less demand for recasts for other games, because a recast wouldn't be much cheaper than MSRP. Warlord's Pike and Shotte starters (=here's your 9th Age Empire army in a box) are around $130 US for 100-ish infantry, 20-ish cavalry, an artillery piece, and a couple of officers.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/02 20:11:16


Post by: Wolflord Patrick


 aphyon wrote:


Small edit @Wolflord

6th ed was the death of 40K in my area. it quite literally killed the game at the FLGS, the only saving grace for 7th was the release of the mechanicus and a few great new models for each faction

So i agree that's where the downhill started to pick up speed.


It killed it in my area and most other areas in the US that I saw or traveled to.

Incidentally, I had a lot of hope for 8th edition when it was being hyped up and at the time of release. After playing a few games with it, the game felt like it was still under construction and not a finished product. I still feel that way with 9th edition. I don't like the idea of memorizing Stratagems for list building combos, I don't like the idea of mortal wounds, and I really don't like direction the game looks to be headed in. This is not a knock on anyone who is currently enjoying the game. On the contrast, I'm glad that there are people who are enjoying it.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/02 21:02:41


Post by: TangoTwoBravo


I agree that 6th Edition was a downgrade, and I walked away for 7th. Where I think I disagree with you is that I believe that 8th was a huge improvement and that 9th has continued that upward trend. So 6th and 7th were a trough and we are back on a high.

For reference, I started in 2nd Ed and while I enjoyed playing 3rd through 5th Edition they weren't really my cup of tea.

I respect that some folks do not like the direction that 8th took and that 9th continued. If you don't like 40K anymore then I am not going to try to talk you into liking it!

I like that terrain matters, soup has been reigned-in and that missions matter. COVID makes it tough to gauge the real scene, but locally our 40K events sell out in a day and lots of folks are playing. It would seem that my locality is not the exception. The bottom line for GW also indicates that the game is doing well.

I do think that the Developers have had some glitches with some of the 9th Ed Codexes. While some late 8th superpowers were toned down (Space Marines et al), the Drukhari and AdMech books show that mistakes can be made. I note, though, that they make an effort to address them. Not fast enough for some, but its a positive change from previous editions. I don't like the campaign books that have Matched Play goodness locked inside them.

Still, 9th has been fun when I haven't been in lockdown!


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/03 00:45:38


Post by: ERJAK


 Strg Alt wrote:
 Gregor Samsa wrote:
Im sure the timeline is exactly as Rick Priestley alludes too: when the GW sales team started telling the GW design studio what to make and in order to pump business growth the 40k game system became impossible to manage.


In other words: A sales driven ruleset is inferior to one implemented by true hobbyists. Maybe 40K will get some day the same treatment WHFB got in the form of 9th Age.



Yeah, 9th age isn't better.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/03 02:10:35


Post by: aphyon


Wolflord Patrick wrote:
 aphyon wrote:


Small edit @Wolflord

6th ed was the death of 40K in my area. it quite literally killed the game at the FLGS, the only saving grace for 7th was the release of the mechanicus and a few great new models for each faction

So i agree that's where the downhill started to pick up speed.


It killed it in my area and most other areas in the US that I saw or traveled to.

Incidentally, I had a lot of hope for 8th edition when it was being hyped up and at the time of release. After playing a few games with it, the game felt like it was still under construction and not a finished product. I still feel that way with 9th edition. I don't like the idea of memorizing Stratagems for list building combos, I don't like the idea of mortal wounds, and I really don't like direction the game looks to be headed in. This is not a knock on anyone who is currently enjoying the game. On the contrast, I'm glad that there are people who are enjoying it.



We found a use for 8th-index 8th to be exact because it was easy to list build and it was streamlined enough to work and 3 universal stratagems were easy to remember and not game breaking.

We use it as an alternate rules set for epic 40K by just halving all ranges and movement distances. it works incredibly well in that setting but in a normal 28mm game setting it lacks so much depth it is really not interesting to play.



TangoTwoBravo wrote:I agree that 6th Edition was a downgrade, and I walked away for 7th. Where I think I disagree with you is that I believe that 8th was a huge improvement and that 9th has continued that upward trend. So 6th and 7th were a trough and we are back on a high.

For reference, I started in 2nd Ed and while I enjoyed playing 3rd through 5th Edition they weren't really my cup of tea.

I respect that some folks do not like the direction that 8th took and that 9th continued. If you don't like 40K anymore then I am not going to try to talk you into liking it!

I like that terrain matters, soup has been reigned-in and that missions matter. COVID makes it tough to gauge the real scene, but locally our 40K events sell out in a day and lots of folks are playing. It would seem that my locality is not the exception. The bottom line for GW also indicates that the game is doing well.

I do think that the Developers have had some glitches with some of the 9th Ed Codexes. While some late 8th superpowers were toned down (Space Marines et al), the Drukhari and AdMech books show that mistakes can be made. I note, though, that they make an effort to address them. Not fast enough for some, but its a positive change from previous editions. I don't like the campaign books that have Matched Play goodness locked inside them.

Still, 9th has been fun when I haven't been in lockdown!


9th appeals to certain types of players
1.new to 40K
they never experienced any other rules set for the game before or any wargames in general but GW marketing has drawn them in. (many tend to like the older editions better in my experience once they have had some demo games)
2.the super competitive players-i mean the edition was made for them so that is not a big surprise
3.the "must play the new edition/GWs word is law" crowd that is closely tied with the "i only play supported or the most active community" games or " i only have time for 1 game system. "

There are of course going to be some outliers from the older fans

I was never really in a hard lockdown so i got to experience 9th in all its "splendor" basically this entire time. it only took 1 read through of the core rules and i decided that was it. GW no longer makes a 40K war game. they make a 40K resource management game. so i jumped off the train and have been having the most fun with the universe ever since.

P.S. Every time somebody mentions how great terrain is in 9th i laugh because it is garbage compared to earlier editions, however it is an improvement over 8th so if that is all they had experienced i can see why some players think that going back and re-using bits of terrain rules from prior editions seems like an improvement.




The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/03 02:42:18


Post by: PenitentJake


 aphyon wrote:


9th appeals to certain types of players
1.new to 40K
they never experienced any other rules set for the game before or any wargames in general but GW marketing has drawn them in. (many tend to like the older editions better in my experience once they have had some demo games)
2.the super competitive players-i mean the edition was made for them so that is not a big surprise
3.the "must play the new edition/GWs word is law" crowd that is closely tied with the "i only play supported or the most active community" games or " i only have time for 1 game system. "



You forgot one: Crusade players.

As someone who loves Crusade, and has wanted a system like it since 1989, I think it's fundamentally off base to suggest that this edition is made for competitive players.

I think you'll also find this might be a favourite edition for people who like 500, 1000 and 3000 point games, because this is the first edition to have native support for games of those sizes.

9th ed was created for people who like options (I'm talking here about game options- NOT equipment options). 2k competitive games will always be the priority on Dakka; people need to remember that games of this type may not be the favourites for large populations of players. I feel like many of the people who pass judgement upon 9th do so based only on the 2k competitive game. I've engaged enough people to know that this is not universally true- some disillusioned players HAVE tried other game sizes and ways to play. I still hazard the guess that many, if not most, have not.



The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/03 03:32:44


Post by: Daedalus81


PenitentJake wrote:
 aphyon wrote:


9th appeals to certain types of players
1.new to 40K
they never experienced any other rules set for the game before or any wargames in general but GW marketing has drawn them in. (many tend to like the older editions better in my experience once they have had some demo games)
2.the super competitive players-i mean the edition was made for them so that is not a big surprise
3.the "must play the new edition/GWs word is law" crowd that is closely tied with the "i only play supported or the most active community" games or " i only have time for 1 game system. "



You forgot one: Crusade players.

As someone who loves Crusade, and has wanted a system like it since 1989, I think it's fundamentally off base to suggest that this edition is made for competitive players.

I think you'll also find this might be a favourite edition for people who like 500, 1000 and 3000 point games, because this is the first edition to have native support for games of those sizes.

9th ed was created for people who like options (I'm talking here about game options- NOT equipment options). 2k competitive games will always be the priority on Dakka; people need to remember that games of this type may not be the favourites for large populations of players. I feel like many of the people who pass judgement upon 9th do so based only on the 2k competitive game. I've engaged enough people to know that this is not universally true- some disillusioned players HAVE tried other game sizes and ways to play. I still hazard the guess that many, if not most, have not.



Well considering there's no data to support any claims we can safely ignore the categorizations.

Every single person in my FLGS has been in since 5th or earlier and they agreed with the TO that 9th has been the best experience they've had in Warhammer so far, but that's as ignorable as anything else.

Terrain in older editions? Feh. 5th edition was what? Forts and invulnerable save cover? Makes for a great game when everyone wants to sit in their corners and shoot each other.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/03 04:21:31


Post by: Insectum7


 Daedalus81 wrote:

Terrain in older editions? Feh. 5th edition was what? Forts and invulnerable save cover? Makes for a great game when everyone wants to sit in their corners and shoot each other.
Yeah, the terrain rules in 5th were one of it's biggest disappointments. 4th ed was much better for terrain.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/03 13:33:04


Post by: Tycho


Well considering there's no data to support any claims we can safely ignore the categorizations.


They hired one of the biggest TO's in the US and employed the others as play testers. They remade the missions to work similarly to the most popular tournament circuits. It's pretty obvious they made the Matched Play rules with tournament players in mind.

But it's also correct that they provided a narrative mechanism as well. It seems like they at least attempted to optimize for both play styles. Our group just stopped playing 9th as we don't care for it at this point (Crusade is just 40k w/extra book keeping and matched play just feels so samey and is getting boring).

I'd actually agree you can start to see the problems bubbling up in 5th. If I'm not mistaken - wasn't that the edition where you could have Grey Knights deploy in such a manner the Demons would be prevented from deploying at all? Some of the codexes that came out towards the middle/end of that edition were so unbalanced. The end of 5th also saw the game getting kind of stale. A lot of games felt like "Oh. This again." and that's honestly where 9th is for a lot of people.

I think 8th (or at least 8th prior to the "All marines all the time" period) was a bright spot in that span of time and tehy had a chance to really get it rolling again. 7th was by far the worst edition (you know it's bad when Dakka can generally agree on something lol) and 8th saved the game in a lot of places. So I don't count 8th as part of the "Downward trend".

Honestly, 9th isn't terrible either, but so many people (myself and my gaming friends included) just aren't getting along with it. There's so many little things about the edition that people don't like. IMO it's still leagues better than 7th ....


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/03 13:48:52


Post by: aphyon



You forgot one: Crusade players.


I left them out because it isn't really a factor. aside from family or close social groups 99.99% of all 9th ed games you see at the FLGS are matched play.

This isn't the first time GW has given you options either. the rules for playing kill teams and combat patrols with mission scenarios and such were in the 4th edition main rulebook. they were also much easier to track without the massive book keeping required with crusade.





Insectum7 wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:

Terrain in older editions? Feh. 5th edition was what? Forts and invulnerable save cover? Makes for a great game when everyone wants to sit in their corners and shoot each other.
Yeah, the terrain rules in 5th were one of it's biggest disappointments. 4th ed was much better for terrain.


Sounds like a lack of diverse terrain with your group/FLGS setting. there were cover saves that ranged from 3+ to 6+ dependent on the type of terrain, not counting the fact that LOS blocking terrain was also a thing. it helped, along with the less lethality of the prior editions, to reduce the impact of first turn IGOUGO mechanics that favored the army going first by providing hard saves. While gunline armies were a legitimate tactic, the best approach was well rounded lists because you eventually have to venture out to deal with objectives.

As for the 4th ed terrain rules DUST copies them a bit (go figure it is Andy Chambers with both of them) when it comes to area terrain minus the size category designations.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/03 14:08:24


Post by: kirotheavenger


Problem with terrain rules is that most people don't care.

You can have all the fancy keywords and different types you like, but generally people aren't interested in having a five minute discussion on what the variety of terrain counts as.
So what you get is a hand wave and "eh, it's all ruins/light cover/whatever".
Even when there's specific defined rules for a piece of terrain, people would rather not bother using those.
That applies equally to all rules.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/03 14:26:12


Post by: PenitentJake


 aphyon wrote:

You forgot one: Crusade players.


I left them out because it isn't really a factor. aside from family or close social groups 99.99% of all 9th ed games you see at the FLGS are matched play.



Fair enough- but keep in mind that judging an edition based only on what happens in stores to the exclusion of what happens in people's homes might be one of the reasons for the disconnect that we see between the dissatisfaction that is consistently and continuously expressed on Dakka vs the huge success and sales numbers of 8th/9th edition.

 aphyon wrote:

This isn't the first time GW has given you options either. the rules for playing kill teams and combat patrols with mission scenarios and such were in the 4th edition main rulebook. they were also much easier to track without the massive book keeping required with crusade.


While true, the Kill Team and Combat Patrol rules in early editions were clear prototypes, which provided nowhere near the options provided by Crusade. Bespoke narrative content in the dexes and scaling game sizes with dedicated missions to facilitate the immersion of those earlier prototypes into the core game and to enhance the impact of escalation style play were incredibly innovative design choices that are likely to only ever be appreciated by people for whom campaign play is the primary interest.. People like me.

Those who enjoy individual games, separated from their army's narrative, and disconnected from other battles fought by their army don't really need Crusade- they may enjoy limited engagement with the system every now and again, or they may go nowhere near it. The hobby does need people who's preferred mode of play is isolated, 2k competitive games. I am grateful for all the people who play that way, because they help keep the hobby alive.

I just wish they felt the same way about the rest of us.







The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/03 14:52:21


Post by: Daedalus81


 aphyon wrote:

Sounds like a lack of diverse terrain with your group/FLGS setting. there were cover saves that ranged from 3+ to 6+ dependent on the type of terrain, not counting the fact that LOS blocking terrain was also a thing. it helped, along with the less lethality of the prior editions, to reduce the impact of first turn IGOUGO mechanics that favored the army going first by providing hard saves. While gunline armies were a legitimate tactic, the best approach was well rounded lists because you eventually have to venture out to deal with objectives.

As for the 4th ed terrain rules DUST copies them a bit (go figure it is Andy Chambers with both of them) when it comes to area terrain minus the size category designations.


9th edition terrain is way better at preventing alpha strikes than any prior edition.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/03 16:44:17


Post by: aphyon


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 aphyon wrote:

Sounds like a lack of diverse terrain with your group/FLGS setting. there were cover saves that ranged from 3+ to 6+ dependent on the type of terrain, not counting the fact that LOS blocking terrain was also a thing. it helped, along with the less lethality of the prior editions, to reduce the impact of first turn IGOUGO mechanics that favored the army going first by providing hard saves. While gunline armies were a legitimate tactic, the best approach was well rounded lists because you eventually have to venture out to deal with objectives.

As for the 4th ed terrain rules DUST copies them a bit (go figure it is Andy Chambers with both of them) when it comes to area terrain minus the size category designations.


9th edition terrain is way better at preventing alpha strikes than any prior edition.


Not in my experience, but your local mileage may vary.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/03 17:47:37


Post by: Karol


It kind of a depends on the army. With some armies if the proper number of L shaped LoS blockers are used, some armies will always get off the charge. It doesn't even matter if they go first or second.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/03 17:52:54


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Daedalus81 wrote:
...9th edition terrain is way better at preventing alpha strikes than any prior edition.


...And yet between movement creep, range creep, damage creep, move-and-fire creep, and risk-free Deep Strike alpha strikes are easier to get off than they've ever been.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/03 17:54:23


Post by: DarknessEternal


Tell me the first edition you played without telling me the first edition you played.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/03 17:57:47


Post by: Insectum7


 DarknessEternal wrote:
Tell me the first edition you played without telling me the first edition you played.
3+ on 2d6.

Mark of Khorne: 2+ on 2d6


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/03 19:47:35


Post by: Tycho


 DarknessEternal wrote:
Tell me the first edition you played without telling me the first edition you played.


My favorite weapons had awesome effects tables for what would happen when you used them. But no actual rules to actually use them ....


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/03 19:55:57


Post by: ccs


 DarknessEternal wrote:
Tell me the first edition you played without telling me the first edition you played.


Space Wolves make their debut in the pages of WD.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/03 19:58:14


Post by: Arschbombe


 DarknessEternal wrote:
Tell me the first edition you played without telling me the first edition you played.


Metal bawkses!


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/03 19:59:38


Post by: AnomanderRake


 DarknessEternal wrote:
Tell me the first edition you played without telling me the first edition you played.


Glance damage table, pen damage table, ordnance damage table.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/03 20:17:31


Post by: Vankraken


 DarknessEternal wrote:
Tell me the first edition you played without telling me the first edition you played.


Taudar


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/03 20:21:54


Post by: Sim-Life


 DarknessEternal wrote:
Tell me the first edition you played without telling me the first edition you played.


Zoanthropes rolled D12s and D10s for damage.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/03 20:24:46


Post by: Gadzilla666


 DarknessEternal wrote:
Tell me the first edition you played without telling me the first edition you played.

Raptors had Hit and Run and were Daemonkin.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/03 21:16:23


Post by: PenitentJake


 DarknessEternal wrote:
Tell me the first edition you played without telling me the first edition you played.


Squats, Ymgarl genestealers and deodorant bottle land speeders.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/03 21:54:18


Post by: TangoTwoBravo


 aphyon wrote:
Spoiler:
Wolflord Patrick wrote:
 aphyon wrote:


Small edit @Wolflord

6th ed was the death of 40K in my area. it quite literally killed the game at the FLGS, the only saving grace for 7th was the release of the mechanicus and a few great new models for each faction

So i agree that's where the downhill started to pick up speed.


It killed it in my area and most other areas in the US that I saw or traveled to.

Incidentally, I had a lot of hope for 8th edition when it was being hyped up and at the time of release. After playing a few games with it, the game felt like it was still under construction and not a finished product. I still feel that way with 9th edition. I don't like the idea of memorizing Stratagems for list building combos, I don't like the idea of mortal wounds, and I really don't like direction the game looks to be headed in. This is not a knock on anyone who is currently enjoying the game. On the contrast, I'm glad that there are people who are enjoying it.



We found a use for 8th-index 8th to be exact because it was easy to list build and it was streamlined enough to work and 3 universal stratagems were easy to remember and not game breaking.

We use it as an alternate rules set for epic 40K by just halving all ranges and movement distances. it works incredibly well in that setting but in a normal 28mm game setting it lacks so much depth it is really not interesting to play.



TangoTwoBravo wrote:I agree that 6th Edition was a downgrade, and I walked away for 7th. Where I think I disagree with you is that I believe that 8th was a huge improvement and that 9th has continued that upward trend. So 6th and 7th were a trough and we are back on a high.

For reference, I started in 2nd Ed and while I enjoyed playing 3rd through 5th Edition they weren't really my cup of tea.

I respect that some folks do not like the direction that 8th took and that 9th continued. If you don't like 40K anymore then I am not going to try to talk you into liking it!

I like that terrain matters, soup has been reigned-in and that missions matter. COVID makes it tough to gauge the real scene, but locally our 40K events sell out in a day and lots of folks are playing. It would seem that my locality is not the exception. The bottom line for GW also indicates that the game is doing well.

I do think that the Developers have had some glitches with some of the 9th Ed Codexes. While some late 8th superpowers were toned down (Space Marines et al), the Drukhari and AdMech books show that mistakes can be made. I note, though, that they make an effort to address them. Not fast enough for some, but its a positive change from previous editions. I don't like the campaign books that have Matched Play goodness locked inside them.

Still, 9th has been fun when I haven't been in lockdown!


9th appeals to certain types of players
1.new to 40K
they never experienced any other rules set for the game before or any wargames in general but GW marketing has drawn them in. (many tend to like the older editions better in my experience once they have had some demo games)
2.the super competitive players-i mean the edition was made for them so that is not a big surprise
3.the "must play the new edition/GWs word is law" crowd that is closely tied with the "i only play supported or the most active community" games or " i only have time for 1 game system. "

There are of course going to be some outliers from the older fans

I was never really in a hard lockdown so i got to experience 9th in all its "splendor" basically this entire time. it only took 1 read through of the core rules and i decided that was it. GW no longer makes a 40K war game. they make a 40K resource management game. so i jumped off the train and have been having the most fun with the universe ever since.

P.S. Every time somebody mentions how great terrain is in 9th i laugh because it is garbage compared to earlier editions, however it is an improvement over 8th so if that is all they had experienced i can see why some players think that going back and re-using bits of terrain rules from prior editions seems like an improvement.




So how many games of 9th Ed did you play? I played 9th Ed weekly from June to Dec, and then from Feb to April, and now since early July. I found I had to force myself to play 6th Edition, while 8th and 9th have genuinely been fun. Missions actually mean something now - my recollection of 5th Ed was to kill everything. Ditto for 6th and 8th.

The group that I play with the most at the FLGS are not new to 40K. I would hazard that most joined circa 5th Ed, with some joining earlier (me in 2nd) and some later. Neither are they hard-core tourney players. We have a local tourney every couple of months, but it does not go towards ITC standings and it is more of a fixed day when we know that we get at least three good games of 40K. Perhaps we fit the bill of those who play the most recent edition, but we've certainly enjoyed doing so. Like I said, our local tourneys sell out the day they go live to book spots, and while capacity is limited on Saturdays the available tables are booked for 40K 9th ed.

I get that you do not like where 40K has gone, but I don't think you need to look down your nose at those who do. Maybe just accept that not everyone agrees with your opinion?


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/04 00:41:25


Post by: aphyon


DarknessEternal wrote:Tell me the first edition you played without telling me the first edition you played.


Template weapons were "guess" range and if you guessed wrong you could not even fire them.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

So how many games of 9th Ed did you play? I played 9th Ed weekly from June to Dec, and then from Feb to April, and now since early July. I found I had to force myself to play 6th Edition, while 8th and 9th have genuinely been fun. Missions actually mean something now - my recollection of 5th Ed was to kill everything. Ditto for 6th and 8th.

The group that I play with the most at the FLGS are not new to 40K. I would hazard that most joined circa 5th Ed, with some joining earlier (me in 2nd) and some later. Neither are they hard-core tourney players. We have a local tourney every couple of months, but it does not go towards ITC standings and it is more of a fixed day when we know that we get at least three good games of 40K. Perhaps we fit the bill of those who play the most recent edition, but we've certainly enjoyed doing so. Like I said, our local tourneys sell out the day they go live to book spots, and while capacity is limited on Saturdays the available tables are booked for 40K 9th ed.

I get that you do not like where 40K has gone, but I don't think you need to look down your nose at those who do. Maybe just accept that not everyone agrees with your opinion?


I see you are not familiar with my other posts on here. i have been actively playing 40k since about 2000, i have been running the late night gaming area at my FLGS since 2008 i am there for 12+ hours every saturday. we have a large space with many table that are first come first serve for free so throughout the day there is nothing that limits table space by being booked out for game system A or B. i have had players show up at mindnight and start a full scale apocalypse game. i have the opportunity to play or observe people playing loads of games from various editiions and game systems not just 40K/GW games. I also actively play/demo about 10 different systems (see my sig) because of this my take on game mechanics and game design is a bit more broad than "what did GW do this time."

GIven that background my experience with 9th edition game play is-from when it was released until now(we never really locked down during the pandemic switching over to small group private invite games as per the rules imposed on us). rather i directly played or watched it being played by various regulars my opinion on it hasn't changed. i give every system a chance, i even use index 8th edition still for an alternate rules set for epic 40K. because of this there are 2 editions i have played that i think are the worst editions GW ever made-6th and 9th. i will even still play 7th (without formations)

In my location, for the most part the veteran players who have been playing as long as i have do not enjoy 9th, and many of the new players i have demo'ed older editions for like them quite a bit for the options, lore rules, and game mechanics. building up a nice sized group of players who either enjoy playing older editions as well as or more than 9th. In this group mostly are casual players while the "hardcore WAAC players" tend to really like 9th


As for that last point-this is a discussion board and we are having discussions, everybody is entitled to their opinion of 9th rather it be negative or positive. arguing my positions isn't "looking my nose down" on anybody



The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/04 01:18:35


Post by: TangoTwoBravo


aphyon,

Should I be familiar with your other posts? I respect, though, that you run games at your FLGS on a regular basis.

You say its just opinions and not looking down your nose at those who like 9th ed and yet immediately before that you say that the only people in your area that like 9th Ed are "hardcore WAAC players." So you are not casting a shade on those who like 9th? In your post to which I originally responded you used a similar approach.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/04 02:09:40


Post by: aphyon


TangoTwoBravo wrote:
aphyon,

Should I be familiar with your other posts? I respect, though, that you run games at your FLGS on a regular basis.

You say its just opinions and not looking down your nose at those who like 9th ed and yet immediately before that you say that the only people in your area that like 9th Ed are "hardcore WAAC players." So you are not casting a shade on those who like 9th? In your post to which I originally responded you used a similar approach.


It is human nature to group things, there are obvious things that make the comp gamers stand out over casual gamers, recognizing that doesn't make it less true or a form of insult. It is just like every other aspect of the game. some players are more into the lore, the hobbying/customization/painting, the playing, or just the winning etc...


Everybody enjoys a win in a war game, but that is not always what some people enjoy most out of the hobby.



The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/04 02:18:43


Post by: Daedalus81


 DarknessEternal wrote:
Tell me the first edition you played without telling me the first edition you played.


Wargear cards


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/04 02:56:01


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 DarknessEternal wrote:
Tell me the first edition you played without telling me the first edition you played.
Nulify card.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/04 07:49:53


Post by: tneva82


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 aphyon wrote:

Sounds like a lack of diverse terrain with your group/FLGS setting. there were cover saves that ranged from 3+ to 6+ dependent on the type of terrain, not counting the fact that LOS blocking terrain was also a thing. it helped, along with the less lethality of the prior editions, to reduce the impact of first turn IGOUGO mechanics that favored the army going first by providing hard saves. While gunline armies were a legitimate tactic, the best approach was well rounded lists because you eventually have to venture out to deal with objectives.

As for the 4th ed terrain rules DUST copies them a bit (go figure it is Andy Chambers with both of them) when it comes to area terrain minus the size category designations.


9th edition terrain is way better at preventing alpha strikes than any prior edition.


Yet alpha striking is stronger than in most of editions. Maybe start of 8e it was stronger. But 3-7e were less of a alpha strike than 9e.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/04 10:35:21


Post by: Blackie


 DarknessEternal wrote:
Tell me the first edition you played without telling me the first edition you played.


Orks still had named warboss Nazdreg, which allowed a 4th heavy support choice.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/04 16:05:33


Post by: Daedalus81


tneva82 wrote:
Yet alpha striking is stronger than in most of editions. Maybe start of 8e it was stronger. But 3-7e were less of a alpha strike than 9e.


And on what data you support this?


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/04 16:07:42


Post by: Grimtuff


 Blackie wrote:
 DarknessEternal wrote:
Tell me the first edition you played without telling me the first edition you played.


Orks still had named warboss Nazdreg, which allowed a 4th heavy support choice.


Oohhh a tough one! That codex stretched all the way until late 4th/the cusp of 5th.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/04 16:12:48


Post by: Sunny Side Up


9th Ed. Alpha Strikes are nothing like ol' Doom of Malan'tai days, etc..


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/04 16:52:14


Post by: DarknessEternal


Y'all were missing the point of "tell me which edition you first played".

When someone says X was the best edition, you can infer which one they played first. That's it, that's why they think it was the best. They're being an enormous baby.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/04 16:57:13


Post by: aphyon


 DarknessEternal wrote:
Y'all were missing the point of "tell me which edition you first played".

When someone says X was the best edition, you can infer which one they played first. That's it, that's why they think it was the best. They're being an enormous baby.


Except you are wrong. i started in 3rd, it was good, better than 9th but it wasn't as good as 4th or 5th. 3rd/4th had most of the best codexes, 5th had the best overall core rule set.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/04 17:21:21


Post by: PenitentJake


 DarknessEternal wrote:
Y'all were missing the point of "tell me which edition you first played".

When someone says X was the best edition, you can infer which one they played first. That's it, that's why they think it was the best. They're being an enormous baby.


I can't speak for anyone else, but I responded to "tell me which edition" because I think I might be an exception to your assumptions. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think your assertion is that people who like 8th/9th are recent players. I played a handful of Rogue Trader games, hit a peak in 2nd, continued to play HARD from 3rd-5th, then skipped 6th and 7th. Despite that, 9th is my favourite edition.

So, am I an exception to your theory, or would you suspect someone who reports that 9th is their fave has been playing since RT?


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/04 17:29:56


Post by: Dirk Reinecke


Rhino Rush


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/04 17:32:49


Post by: Racerguy180


I loved RT, liked 2nd, squattening, came back in 8th.
I liked 8th and always had fun but most of that was due to open war deck and like-minded playgroup.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/04 17:39:55


Post by: ccs


 DarknessEternal wrote:
Y'all were missing the point of "tell me which edition you first played".

When someone says X was the best edition, you can infer which one they played first. That's it, that's why they think it was the best. They're being an enormous baby.


But I don't think the first edition that I played was the best. I never have, not even then. It was merely the edition.
Nor was the 2nd one I played the best. Mostly an improvement for sure though.
And you know what? Neither of the two most recent editions qualify either....


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/04 18:37:34


Post by: Grimtuff


 DarknessEternal wrote:
Y'all were missing the point of "tell me which edition you first played".

When someone says X was the best edition, you can infer which one they played first. That's it, that's why they think it was the best. They're being an enormous baby.


Yeah, no. You're wrong there- just like the guy on page 1 who wheeled out that same old chestnut...


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/04 18:40:47


Post by: Sim-Life


 DarknessEternal wrote:
Y'all were missing the point of "tell me which edition you first played".

When someone says X was the best edition, you can infer which one they played first. That's it, that's why they think it was the best. They're being an enormous baby.


Codex: Strawman hadn't been squatted yet.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/04 19:48:16


Post by: Insectum7


 DarknessEternal wrote:
Y'all were missing the point of "tell me which edition you first played".

When someone says X was the best edition, you can infer which one they played first. That's it, that's why they think it was the best. They're being an enormous baby.
wrong. Started in 2nd, think 4th was the best.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/04 19:57:22


Post by: oni


 DarknessEternal wrote:
Tell me the first edition you played without telling me the first edition you played.


Red sustained fire dice; Terminator armor save was 3+ on 2D6; Lascannon armor penetration was 3D6.

So I obviously started in 2nd edition. My favorite edition is 8th with 5th as a very close second.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/04 20:01:01


Post by: Voss


 DarknessEternal wrote:
Y'all were missing the point of "tell me which edition you first played".

When someone says X was the best edition, you can infer which one they played first. That's it, that's why they think it was the best. They're being an enormous baby.
Nope. That's just bad logic. You don't have any ability to determine or verify why someone likes something. You're just making a decree based on nothing at all.

Preference doesn't always boil down to nostalgia or first experiences. Sometimes its emotional, sometimes its analysis, sometimes its the feel of an edition, or even the group.

I can't think of many games where the first one (or the first one I played) is my favorite or the most memorable.
For Shadowrun its definitely 3rd, not 1st. Same for D&D. Pretty much everything White Wolf is extremely tainted now, so I don't even care.
I'd never go back to Civ1, Civ IV is probably mechanically one of the better ones, but I doubt I could tolerate the graphics again
Wizardry I: Proving Grounds of the Mad Overlord was my very first computer game, but it certainly doesn't even vaguely make the list of my favorites of the series, the genre or the medium.

For the warhammers, I'm not even sure anymore. Every edition has flaws, and so many of them are so similar I couldn't pick them apart without a lot of work. Somewhere in 4th to 6th would probably bother me the least, but I'm not sure which one. Age of Sigmar 1st edition was pure trash.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/04 21:09:04


Post by: AnomanderRake


 DarknessEternal wrote:
Y'all were missing the point of "tell me which edition you first played".

When someone says X was the best edition, you can infer which one they played first. That's it, that's why they think it was the best. They're being an enormous baby.


So...you're one of the people who believes the only people who like 9th are the people who started playing in 9th?


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/05 01:08:25


Post by: Akar


I have a bit of a different take on it. I've been playing 40k themed games since 2nd. Mostly the side games like Space Hulk, Necromunda, etc. because I simply didn't have the money to get involved in full on 40k. While I played a small Nid force in 2nd, it wasn't until 3rd came out that I was in a better position and started playing more actively.

While I don't think 3rd ed. was the best edition by any means, I do feel that no other edition has has more of an impact on the game as a whole. 4th cleaned it up a bit, but I feel that 5th was the worst (before 9th). I'm not saying it was as bad or unplayable as 9th currently is, but that it didn't add anything memorable to the game. I honestly can't say much about 6th as I skipped most of that edition due to life. Unlike most players though, I feel that 7th was the best edition so far. There is no doubt in my mind though that 9th is by far the worst edition to ever be put to print.

The reasons differ from the OP. The most noticeable thing about 5th ed was that was the start of changes to the missions since GW had almost completely pulled out of running events. Grand Tournaments and eventually Games Days had become non-existent outside of WHW. Some of the bigger players like Adepticon, NOVA, and the ITC, altering the missions on their own started to become more common. I first noticed it when I attended Adepticon at the tail end of 4th. While it was cool, it wasn't an issue since there were still 40k tournaments around to be found.

When I came back at the end of 6th, I see that it had only gotten worse. Most of the more popular events had kept on modifying the missions despite the edition change. Netlisting was also a very common thing that I also noticed in 6th. This may have been going on longer, but I wasn't around for that gap of time. Either way, it was pointless to get used to it since 7th had already been teased and it was all going to change, or at least it was supposed to.

7th dropped and we finally got the edition we had been waiting for and deserved. It was the first edition where players were no longer forced to take models they didn't like. Themed forces weren't limited to established alternate lists, like Iyanden, Deathwing/Ravenwing, etc. These were some of the highlights from 3rd-5th and instead of waiting for GW to give separate permission for more of those lists, players were free to build their own list with the models they liked. Even if they were from different armies. Sure there were broken combos, especially with allies, but it was the full on death of the standard FOC and and end to 'Tax' units that made it great.

Some of the game mechanics from 5th/6th didn't survive, which was an even bigger shame imo. They offered 2 modes of play. The traditional 'Eternal War' missions for those who preferred that style of play. A new 'Maelstrom' style of play was also introduced. I grew to love the 7th ed. 'Maelstrom' missions and still feel it's the most competitive mission pack we've ever had. Once I got comfortable with that format, I started looking into tournaments again and while I wasn't surprised at how hard it was to find a Maelstrom Tournament, it should've been fairly easy to find an Eternal War tournament. I was shocked to find very few of them, but more shocked that the Big Players were STILL playing their own system despite 2 edition changes. In addition to that, these events had ripped the heart out of 7th by restricting rules that opened up the game. First Allies, then soup style lists, eventually limiting players back down to single codex if non-imperial. This continued through to 9th with the Rule of 3 taking us back to 3rd/4th by creating a more Std. FOC like arena.

I agree with most people that the biggest downfall of 7th was the introduction of 'Formations' (or whatever they're called). I'm going to be fair here, since I don't believe that the concept was bad, just implementing them without a points cost associated with them. We still have Formations in 9th that are Matched Play legal in the Charadon books, but there appears to be some progress by giving them a cost, at least in the case of admech. The issue I have with them, is we're again back to specialized lists that are only allowed in the rules. This is what the 'Matched Play' mission drives players toward, but it's just a shame because the need for it was done away with at the start of 7th, and is the result of giving players what they think is good for the game instead of players playing the game they have written.

8th edition wasn't any better. Despite not having their rules included in yet another edition, tournaments refused to play it. Several players who learned under 8th and practiced the 8th ed. missions found an entirely different set of rules waiting for them when the moved into tournament play. Which they were still playing despite their rules not making it into 6th, 7th, or 8th. Netlisting was blatantly common as players would often show up with near complete armies that were carbon copies of winning event lists, but the players either didn't have the experience with the nuances of the list, or never understood the mechanics behind 'Maelstrom'.

9th edition is where the final pile of dirt was added to the grave and the tombstone erected on 'Competitive 40k'. There hasn't been a 40k tournament where players simply played the missions in the book. Several great mechanics are now lost under the lies that they somehow weren't 'competitive'. After 3 editions of destroying competitive mechanics to move the game forward, they finally managed to get their rules into the game, leaving us with a mission and system that is barely playable, let alone competitive.

-----
This thread, (and the other one similar to this), show that there are more players unhappy with this edition more than any other edition that I've seen. There are quite a few of us who are sitting on armies that were previously considered competitive, simply not included in 'Matched Play'. There are players sitting in a void who don't fit into the 'Narrative' mission set, and have no place in 'Competitive Matched Play'. There are groups going back to earlier editions, or adapting earlier editions missions into 9th, just so that they have something to do while waiting. Others have simply left.

GW is supposed to be listening to the community more now than ever. They've got a system in place to circumvent the wait between codex releases to address mis-pointed units, or even rules. Despite that, we've already seen the release of 2 'Tournament' books that have failed to provide us with a functional system or access for us to display our hobby. There is little hope that the ChapApp this year will provide anything new, and we're remaining ever more optimistic that 10th will allow us to play again.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/05 02:25:34


Post by: aphyon


GW is supposed to be listening to the community more now than ever.


Except they are not, in fact from their behavior it looks like they are going to burn down the TT game, lock everybody out and make as much cash as they can before they hype sale the IP to another company or move to a different media.

Both the outer circle and arch have done great videos explaining this from the business side of things.



The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/05 02:28:02


Post by: Daedalus81


 aphyon wrote:
Both the outer circle and arch have done great videos explaining this from the business side of things.


I'm sure they have.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/05 02:55:40


Post by: ccs


 aphyon wrote:
GW is supposed to be listening to the community more now than ever.


Except they are not, in fact from their behavior it looks like they are going to burn down the TT game, lock everybody out and make as much cash as they can before they hype sale the IP to another company or move to a different media.

Both the outer circle and arch have done great videos explaining this from the business side of things.


Please folks, don't be like poor Aphyon here. Always use spray paint in well ventilated areas, don't sniff your glue, & never ever lick metal minis (even if they are supposedly "white metal").



The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/05 08:03:38


Post by: kirotheavenger


I do agree with the general principle though, GW is making more and more decisions which can only be described as anti-consumer in the pursuit of increased profits.
They work, so they keep doing them and they're taking them to the next level.

They've nailed their marketing but they're not any better as a company.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/05 10:01:24


Post by: RaptorusRex


 aphyon wrote:
GW is supposed to be listening to the community more now than ever.


Except they are not, in fact from their behavior it looks like they are going to burn down the TT game, lock everybody out and make as much cash as they can before they hype sale the IP to another company or move to a different media.

Both the outer circle and arch have done great videos explaining this from the business side of things.



Outer Circle's brand is misinformed bitching.

As for the other guy, well, I have a poor opinion of him, but that's a political disagreement. So not kosher for this board.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/05 13:47:21


Post by: aphyon


Please folks, don't be like poor Aphyon here. Always use spray paint in well ventilated areas, don't sniff your glue, & never ever lick metal minis (even if they are supposedly "white metal").


Oh fun straight to personal insults.

How about we stick with the discussion about GW as a corporation is making business decisions in relation to their target customer base/fans, marketing etc.. and how those decisions are well known signs about how large corporations behave?

'facts don't care about your feelings' rather or not you like the person(s) making valid points.



Outer Circle's brand is misinformed bitching.

Interesting take, i found his cost analysis related to plastic injection mold production in a general industrial sense quite well researched


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/05 14:10:27


Post by: IanMalcolmAbs


ccs wrote:
 aphyon wrote:
GW is supposed to be listening to the community more now than ever.


Except they are not, in fact from their behavior it looks like they are going to burn down the TT game, lock everybody out and make as much cash as they can before they hype sale the IP to another company or move to a different media.

Both the outer circle and arch have done great videos explaining this from the business side of things.


Please folks, don't be like poor Aphyon here. Always use spray paint in well ventilated areas, don't sniff your glue, & never ever lick metal minis (even if they are supposedly "white metal").


Nah - he is actually onto something.

3d printing is getting better and cheaper than ever. Selling overcosted models as a business plan is going the way of blockbuster. They would be foolish not to see it.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/05 14:36:21


Post by: posermcbogus


 aphyon wrote:

'facts don't care about your feelings' rather or not you like the person(s) making valid points.


Cool out, swastika dice, you've already name dropped one of the most infamously racist Warhammer influencers, we don't need Ben Shapiro quotes up in here to wash that down. Arch's point, as distasteful as it is to even engage with, is based off of the immanent financial doom of a company... going from strength to strength right now, mostly off the back of enormous brand loyalty? I'm not a fan of how new GW runs their show, and am pretty vocal about it, but the numbers don't lie. Sure, there's nosuch thing as too bigto fail but... Arch's theory is weak and pure speculation at best, and tbh? Aside from him being a spiteful little racist, have you seen the internet slapfights he gets into? He's barely articulate, let alone smart, thinks just re-iterating his argument over and over somehow counts toward being convincing, and has an unpleasant habit of sicking his fans on his foes because he's leaned really hard into the YouTube grifter thing.

Tldr arch is a shitheel, his theory is wack, and he has the social skills of a roadkill cane toad.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/05 14:39:16


Post by: RaptorusRex


 aphyon wrote:



Outer Circle's brand is misinformed bitching.

Interesting take, i found his cost analysis related to plastic injection mold production in a general industrial sense quite well researched


Like Arch (whose statements on Dwarf magic resistance being about belief rather than an inherent quality of the race themselves come to mind), he spreads a lot of lore misconceptions, like Khorne ever being about "honor".

That said, in regards to that, I don't think GW has to worry. At most, they'll switch manufacturing methods. As the law stands, they are the only ones who can produce authentic 40k miniatures. I don't think that is necessarily a good thing, but that's what it is.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/05 15:10:40


Post by: oni


 aphyon wrote:
GW is supposed to be listening to the community more now than ever.


Except they are not...



They are, they're just listening to all the wrong people. I don't think I need to explain any further.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/05 15:14:07


Post by: aphyon


 posermcbogus wrote:
 aphyon wrote:

'facts don't care about your feelings' rather or not you like the person(s) making valid points.


Cool out, swastika dice, you've already name dropped one of the most infamously racist Warhammer influencers, we don't need Ben Shapiro quotes up in here to wash that down. Arch's point, as distasteful as it is to even engage with, is based off of the immanent financial doom of a company... going from strength to strength right now, mostly off the back of enormous brand loyalty? I'm not a fan of how new GW runs their show, and am pretty vocal about it, but the numbers don't lie. Sure, there's nosuch thing as too bigto fail but... Arch's theory is weak and pure speculation at best, and tbh? Aside from him being a spiteful little racist, have you seen the internet slapfights he gets into? He's barely articulate, let alone smart, thinks just re-iterating his argument over and over somehow counts toward being convincing, and has an unpleasant habit of sicking his fans on his foes because he's leaned really hard into the YouTube grifter thing.

Tldr arch is a shitheel, his theory is wack, and he has the social skills of a roadkill cane toad.


I see civil discourse is not your forte, not sure about your dice reference, and if you think sarcastic humor about historical things the British empire did in the 1700s to stamp out slavery, the actions of the Ashanti empire, or quoting a black comedian taken out of context by detractors makes him a racist there is nothing i can do to help you entertain reasonable debate. None of this makes Shapiro's quote any less true as a statement of reality. or would you prefer something from vaush?

Financial doom isn't what the point was about, it was about a change in the direction GWs marketing is going, changing the target demographic, they are literally teaming up with HASBRO. do you think HASBRO cares about the TT game or the lore or the fanbase when they can market the IP to a far wider market? With the potential of a much larger profit profile?


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/05 15:21:26


Post by: posermcbogus


 aphyon wrote:

I see civil discourse is not your forte


Facts about Arch's video about gnoblars don't care about your feelings. Stop clogging the thread with your apologetics and slippery goalposts.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/05 15:22:52


Post by: Daedalus81


 aphyon wrote:

Financial doom isn't what the point was about, it was about a change in the direction GWs marketing is going, changing the target demographic, they are literally teaming up with HASBRO. do you think HASBRO cares about the TT game or the lore or the fanbase when they can market the IP to a far wider market? With the potential of a much larger profit profile?


Do you know how often and how long ago people have quoted a Hasbro buyout and how "GW is dumbing down things for kids"? Yet they literally put out a video of a kreiger disembowling an orc and then edited a shovel into it. Hasbro quality material right there.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/05 15:25:05


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 AnomanderRake wrote:
So...you're one of the people who believes the only people who like 9th are the people who started playing in 9th?
Nah. Dim thinks we're all babies who love the edition we started with the most.

I know 2nd Ed isn't the best edition of 40k. It's vehicle rules were great, but HTH combat was an absolute mess, and the game was basically hero-hammer incarnate.

2nd Ed worked when it was applied to Necromunda.



The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/05 15:27:14


Post by: Daedalus81


 oni wrote:
They are, they're just listening to all the wrong people. I don't think I need to explain any further.


By the wrong people do you specifically mean competitive players?

In the other thread you stated:

What I see consistently drive players away, new and veterans, are WAAC/TFG players. These people generally have a low appreciation (or none at all) for the other aspects of the hobby (e.g. Modeling, Painting, the Lore) and are so focused on rules and competitive game play to the detriment of other players 'complete hobby experience' that it creates a toxic and discouraging environment.


And yet they made a paint rule that encourages hobbying, didn't they?

There's a crusade system, right? They rewrote the Maelstrom rules.

How exactly are they only listening to only competitive players?



The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/05 15:34:50


Post by: vipoid


I'd be wary of ascribing GW's anti-customer policies to a desire to sell off their franchise. Mainly because anti-customer practises have basically been their forte for at least the last 10-15 years.

Not saying you're wrong, mind, just that I'm not sure the current evidence is strong enough to support this theory.

That said, it does make me wonder about GW's recent efforts to either shut down people making 40k content or else get them to work for GW. Could this be an effort to tighten their grip on their IP in preparation for a later sale?

But then GW has been lawyer-happy in the past when it comes to their IP so maybe it's just more of that.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/05 15:35:16


Post by: aphyon


 posermcbogus wrote:
 aphyon wrote:

I see civil discourse is not your forte


Facts about Arch's video about gnoblars don't care about your feelings. Stop clogging the thread with your apologetics and slippery goalposts.


So you have no legitimate position to defend or point of debate? very well i accept you're surrender.





That said, it does make me wonder about GW's recent efforts to either shut down people making 40k content or else get them to work for GW. Could this be an effort to tighten their grip on their IP in preparation for a later sale?


I think it is the scope of things now, not only going after fan animators, i mean we were all amused with the chapter house case where GW was trying to claim copyright on just about everything including historical weapons & armor. Now they are going after game modders who give away free game upgrades to products not even made by GW but under contract for the IP.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/05 15:38:34


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 vipoid wrote:
That said, it does make me wonder about GW's recent efforts to either shut down people making 40k content or else get them to work for GW. Could this be an effort to tighten their grip on their IP in preparation for a later sale?
It's because of Warhammer+.

Just as GW wants to be the hobby, they want to be the singular source of streaming content for this sort of thing. If they could go after lore and batrep channels, they would.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/05 15:44:46


Post by: Gregor Samsa


If I were GW execs I would be desperately trying to kill off the tabletop game. Its too expensive, convoluted and clearly not an aspect of their IP they are interested in dedicating resources to.

With the increasing revenue they are discovering through royaltys and licensing, if I were them I would position the tabletop game as a historic necessity to imprint their brand. But that time is over. The future of GW is moving its IP into other media. That is way cheaper, less warehousing, no manufacturing factories and supply chain management and so on.


It would probably be good for wargamers too. GW doesn't want to invest in a good tabletop game, they want to sell models. An end to 40k as we know it would see other competitors rush into the market and almost assuredly put out a better quality TABLETOP WARGAME.

Times change.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/05 15:49:40


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Gregor Samsa wrote:
If I were GW execs I would be desperately trying to kill off the tabletop game. Its too expensive, convoluted and clearly not an aspect of their IP they are interested in dedicating resources to.
It's pretty much what they devote almost all of their resources towards. And they're making tons of money off of it.

Saying GW should ditch their tabletop game is like saying McDonald's needs to get out of selling food.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/05 15:55:48


Post by: Gregor Samsa


Right but Mcdonald's real business model is owning land in incredibly valuable locations. The franchise owners struggle to make money from all but the most desirable franchise locations, while Mcdonalds proper makes oodles from owning vast tracts of land that they pump cheap food out of. This is well documented.

GW is playing with fire with the tabletop. Its costs are through the roof. Compared to parlaying this brand identity into a fully digital media to get inline with the world we live in today and what will come tomorrow, it would make me anxious as a GW accountant watching them dump millions into a fancy plastic toy making factory housed in the UK.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/05 15:58:37


Post by: Grimtuff


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Gregor Samsa wrote:
If I were GW execs I would be desperately trying to kill off the tabletop game. Its too expensive, convoluted and clearly not an aspect of their IP they are interested in dedicating resources to.
It's pretty much what they devote almost all of their resources towards. And they're making tons of money off of it.

Saying GW should ditch their tabletop game is like saying McDonald's needs to get out of selling food.


To be fair, MaccyD's main source of income is real estate though.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/05 16:14:37


Post by: posermcbogus


 aphyon wrote:
 posermcbogus wrote:
 aphyon wrote:

I see civil discourse is not your forte


Facts about Arch's video about gnoblars don't care about your feelings. Stop clogging the thread with your apologetics and slippery goalposts.


So you have no legitimate position to defend or point of debate? very well i accept you're surrender.



I pulled Arch apart. I told you to quit dragging in losers whose job it is to have bad opinions on politics - a banned topic - on internet, and instead you dragged in another one. I told you to stay on topic, and you're still trying to chase this garbage. Trying to frame me as illegitimate because I've not got the same early 2000s keyboard warrior "I was number 3 in my highschool debateb club" tone as you is just straight up childish. You wanna keep going, let's head to PMs.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/05 17:15:38


Post by: Karol


 Daedalus81 wrote:

Do you know how often and how long ago people have quoted a Hasbro buyout and how "GW is dumbing down things for kids"? Yet they literally put out a video of a kreiger disembowling an orc and then edited a shovel into it. Hasbro quality material right there.

Wait, how is that something special? You can watch worse stuff in 45 min of any regular history lesson at school. It is disembowlment something special and taboo in other countries, in like you have to be an adult to have seen depicted somewhere. Asking because I know that some western countries have really strange age law for other things too.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/05 17:23:45


Post by: Voss


Karol wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:

Do you know how often and how long ago people have quoted a Hasbro buyout and how "GW is dumbing down things for kids"? Yet they literally put out a video of a kreiger disembowling an orc and then edited a shovel into it. Hasbro quality material right there.

Wait, how is that something special? You can watch worse stuff in 45 min of any regular history lesson at school. It is disembowlment something special and taboo in other countries, in like you have to be an adult to have seen depicted somewhere. Asking because I know that some western countries have really strange age law for other things too.


Law, no.
But generally disembowelments aren't a thing for kids entertainment. And it does feel odd to have to explain that to someone.

Hasbro is generally known for brightly colored plastic toys and board games. Though some of their divisions are more late-teen early 20s oriented (like Wizards of the Coasts)


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/05 17:34:34


Post by: Karol


I am not think of entertainment. But for example my last month of school we watched a ton of movies, thanks to some classes being online. And we got to see everything, executed people in the streets, women killed by boming runs, hanged people. Had to watch a movie about Umschlagplatz and Dreblinka. Then another one about Wolyn massacers. The purge of Warsaw durning the Uprising. And I am in a sports school, I only get 4 hours of history per week. Someone in regular highschool can have as much as 6, and social studies classes on top of it.



The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/05 17:45:04


Post by: Daedalus81


 Grimtuff wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Gregor Samsa wrote:
If I were GW execs I would be desperately trying to kill off the tabletop game. Its too expensive, convoluted and clearly not an aspect of their IP they are interested in dedicating resources to.
It's pretty much what they devote almost all of their resources towards. And they're making tons of money off of it.

Saying GW should ditch their tabletop game is like saying McDonald's needs to get out of selling food.


To be fair, MaccyD's main source of income is real estate though.



Err they take a yearly franchise fee and a portion of all sales and the franchisee has to upfront a ton of money.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/05 18:09:15


Post by: PenitentJake


@ Akar: Thanks for the detailed perspective. Interesting to see it through the eyes of someone who has a similar history of engagement but a different experience. Just a few things I wanted to respond to:

 Akar wrote:


In addition to that, these events had ripped the heart out of 7th by restricting rules that opened up the game. First Allies, then soup style lists, eventually limiting players back down to single codex if non-imperial. This continued through to 9th with the Rule of 3 taking us back to 3rd/4th by creating a more Std. FOC like arena.


9th has dialed it back certainly- army purity rules + detachment CP costs really di hurt soup; it must be acknowledged that there is a chance this was done in response to the widespread soup outrage that happened in 8th, which really was the golden age for allies- they were encouraged not just to provide multifaction synergies and exploit unintended interactions, they also REWARDED CP for additional detachments.

Rule of 3 only exists in matched play- because so much of your post relates to tournament issues, it's clear that this is your preferred method of play, so I get it... But I still thought it was worth it to point this out.

 Akar wrote:

I agree with most people that the biggest downfall of 7th was the introduction of 'Formations' (or whatever they're called). I'm going to be fair here, since I don't believe that the concept was bad, just implementing them without a points cost associated with them. We still have Formations in 9th that are Matched Play legal in the Charadon books, but there appears to be some progress by giving them a cost, at least in the case of admech. The issue I have with them, is we're again back to specialized lists that are only allowed in the rules.


The thinking was that detachments are a hybrid between formations and the FOC; essentially formations gave you special rules; in 8th, detachments gave you the CP to use strats, so they became your formation-equivalent by providing access to special rules based on army construction, while maintaining the feel of an FOC by making their restrictions based on unit TYPE rather than specific units. Once they decoupled CP from detachments in 9th, they diminished the likeness to formations, so that in the current game, detachments are almost pure FOC's... though having more than one available is nice for fielding themed armies and for narratives that call for atypical forces.

The stuff that I've seen in the campaign books is really optional; I think GW wanted that, because they took a lot of heat for DLC with the Psychic Awakening content, which for many armies was absolutely necessary to combat the egregious imbalance created by Marines 2.0. Many on Dakka still call it DLC; I think their primary complaints are actually with the supplements included in the campaign books, rather than the armies of renown. I never bought the Vigilus books, so I can't compare the Charadon stuff to those books, but certainly when I compare them to PA, the Charadon content seems to come closer to the mark of "Optional Content."

It is also worth pointing out that unlike formations, Armies of Renown are framed as key players in a given campaign, locked to a particular conflict in a particular region of space at a particular time just like all the other Charadon content. As such, it was made to be restricted to battles that are a part of the campaign. People on Dakka don't seem to get this, but it is a key element of the design.

Currently, the Be'lakor datacard and the supplements are the only thing in either of the Charadon Books that is true DLC meant to be used outside of the campaign; even the Disciples of Be'Lakor army of renown is connected specifically to the Campaign.

 Akar wrote:

8th edition wasn't any better. Despite not having their rules included in yet another edition, tournaments refused to play it. Several players who learned under 8th and practiced the 8th ed. missions found an entirely different set of rules waiting for them when the moved into tournament play. Which they were still playing despite their rules not making it into 6th, 7th, or 8th. Netlisting was blatantly common as players would often show up with near complete armies that were carbon copies of winning event lists, but the players either didn't have the experience with the nuances of the list, or never understood the mechanics behind 'Maelstrom'.


I think your first sentence in this paragraph should be "The situation wasn't any better during 8th" - sorry to get nitpicky, but the way it's written makes it sound like the problem you describe is specifically the fault of GW and the edition alone... But the actual problem is the disconnect between support ORGS and GW.

Netlisting is a player issue- neither NOVA, nor the ITC, nor GW have anything to do with it. As a Beardy Grognard from a different generation, the idea of downloading a list from some supposed know it all/ net personality/ influencer is utterly alien to me; I remember fondly the days when star players weren't really a thing and doing things for yourself was understood to be a part of the hobby. The shift here is generational and cultural, and I think anything the ORGS do is reactive rather than steering. For example, GW does now regularly feature Metawatch articles by supposed star players, but I don't think they're doing it to create and perpetuate a star player cult; I think they're reacting to the hipsters who don't think anything is worth doing unless somebody who is supposedly important tells them to do it over the Internet.

Now I don't think your post was actually written with the intent to assign specific blame- you're just describing the situation as you see it and letting the chips fall where they may, and regardless of who is at fault, the problems you describe are legit, particularly from your point of view. As a non-competitive player, I can't write intelligently about the tournament scene, but it was my understanding that most of the people playing in ITC events liked the sytstem: if they didn't, why would they play it, when they could just play Maelstrom with their peers at home or in stores?

 Akar wrote:

9th edition is where the final pile of dirt was added to the grave and the tombstone erected on 'Competitive 40k'. There hasn't been a 40k tournament where players simply played the missions in the book.


So again, not a tournament guy. But it was my understanding that most if not all tournaments use the GT Missions right out of the GT Mission Pack as is for 9th ed. So I'm not sure what you mean, unless I've misunderstood what the GT Mission Pack is and how it works.

 Akar wrote:

Several great mechanics are now lost under the lies that they somehow weren't 'competitive'. After 3 editions of destroying competitive mechanics to move the game forward, they finally managed to get their rules into the game, leaving us with a mission and system that is barely playable, let alone competitive.


For the competitive part, I have to yield to your superior knowledge of the tournament scene, because I have no experience with it or interest in it. But as for the "Playable" part- I like the idea of secondaries, which in Crusade become Agendas. I like them because they allow players some control over the mission and because they are another way for the design team to express the character and flavour of a faction through the bespoke options. Now this easier with say with Agendas, because they don't actually affect your odds of winning- they are merely used to determine how many experience points should be granted to particular units. If I played matched, and winning or losing was directly connected to secondaries, my opinion might be different. I don't, so it isn't.

 Akar wrote:

This thread, (and the other one similar to this), show that there are more players unhappy with this edition more than any other edition that I've seen.


It absolutely, categorically does not prove anything of the sort. It merely proves that the majority of Dakkanauts are unhappy.

But not all players are Dakkanauts- not even close. Also, not all Dakkanauts are even players. Which means that it proves nothing of value.

 Akar wrote:

There are quite a few of us who are sitting on armies that were previously considered competitive, simply not included in 'Matched Play'.


True, but no more or less so than with any edition except the first, which is why edition churn is the biggest enemy of the game, and not the rules of any given edition itself.

 Akar wrote:

There are players sitting in a void who don't fit into the 'Narrative' mission set, and have no place in 'Competitive Matched Play'.


I think there are currently 90 Crusade Missions with another 24 on the way when the Octarius Crusade Mission pack drops. Crusade offers battle honours which can be used to strengthen under-performing units. There are even some options which approach the restricted equipment lists that tend to be among the biggest complaints about 9th made by Dakka. If you can't make your army fit into Crusade, it probably means you're trying to play Renegades and Heretics, Elysians or Corsairs. If you're playing one of those two armies, my condolences- there's nothing anyone can say that will make you feel better. I am hopeful that these armies will return in some way shape or form, but even that won't make you feel better because the wait is going to suck and there's no guarantee that they'll that they'll get it right if it's coming at all.

 Akar wrote:

There are groups going back to earlier editions, or adapting earlier editions missions into 9th, just so that they have something to do while waiting. Others have simply left.


The folks who are playing old versions or adapting missions from old versions are those who still embody that old DIY spirit I talked about earlier. As for those who left, sales numbers seem to indicate that for everyone leaving, two more are getting on board. Sales numbers, like Dakka posts, are not a 100% accurate picture of what's actually happening, but they may be the most accurate tool anyone has to measure the state and health of the game. Unfortunately ONLY GW has that information, and they aren't going to release the full details to anyone.

 Akar wrote:

GW is supposed to be listening to the community more now than ever. They've got a system in place to circumvent the wait between codex releases to address mis-pointed units, or even rules. Despite that, we've already seen the release of 2 'Tournament' books that have failed to provide us with a functional system or access for us to display our hobby. There is little hope that the ChapApp this year will provide anything new, and we're remaining ever more optimistic that 10th will allow us to play again.


Maelstrom of War Missions were redone for 9th in White Dwarf. I don't remember enough of the details to talk about whether they were as good as the ones in any of the other editions but they do exist. I don't remember the issue number. Only tournament players can comment on whether they feel the rules in tournaments are functional, so I can't comment on that. I don't know what's coming for Chapter Approved... They don't seem to be the old mixed bag annuals that we used to get- they are now mostly mission packs; I don't suspect there will be another GT pack this year. The Tactical Terrain pack was CA, so theoretically there might be an unforseen pack on the way- like a CA City Fight pack for example, but who can say?

As for the notion of 10th, as I mentioned earlier, I personally feel that all edition changes are bad, because they all mean reinventing the wheel which means they all stop development to rerelease everything that's already been released 9 times instead of doing anything new. It will also recreate the have new codex vs have not new codex situation that is currently one of the biggest issues facing the game.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/05 23:50:54


Post by: winterman


As someone who played since 3ed, seems like end of 7th was a turning point for the better.

Shocked? Most people hated the end of 7th due to all the expansions as well as Ynnari. But consider, that was when they published this massive, comprehensive FAQ. They had been shoddy with FAQs for several editions, this was the first time they went out of their way to take ownership of the games state in quite awhile (arguably not since end of 3ed trial rules). Also worth mentioning every faction (or most) ended up getting some love by all the books that came out then. Not perfect mind, not balanced of course, but not mind numbing 8+ years between rules for Orks and DE.

Its gotten better since then. Not perfect, mind you. A lot better though. Regular FAQs? Now we complain they take a month, it was years in some cases, if ever. Missions designed for tournament play, in a handy book with other rules you need? Yeah this second outing was a mistep, but its still a far cry from the support before. And its not just us tourney players getting support, multiple Crusade expansions, campaign books, etc.

The premise of the thread though is the bean counters are to blame. I want to posit another possibility. Someone with more business, marketing and product sense took over and forced the rules devs out of the fiefdom and out to engage their customers. Improve the quality of their product and fix mistakes rather than gaslight us into thinking its our fault. I don't miss that at all...still some of that going on from time to time (old habits die hard), but still better now that they at least take some ownership.

Does come with a cost though and we see it now in how they have treated FLGS and started to draw lines in the sand because of Warhammer+. Not going to defend those actions, but product-wise as a direct consumer it is better quality and better supported. Period.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/06 00:05:03


Post by: AnomanderRake


 winterman wrote:
...Improve the quality of their product and fix mistakes rather than gaslight us into thinking its our fault...


I'm sort of baffled by this sentence. I've never felt like GW has attempted to gaslight me into believing the state of the game is my fault; I've always felt like the game comes broken and if I want to have any fun I need to fiddle with it myself. The difference to me between 3rd-7th and 8th-9th is now other players are trying to gaslight me into believing that me not having fun is my own fault, whether it's the endless refrain of "well, if you bought a different army it'd be the best edition ever!" or Jake giving me the "well, if you'd just play Crusade..." lecture.

Even with FAQs the game feels at least as broken to me now as it did in 6th, the difference is that the community is actively trying to convince me I should join the cult of GW and give up trying to fix anything myself now. (I'm being hyperbolic, I don't think you've literally been brainwashed by the cult of GW, I'm just at a loss to explain how my experience of the game is so completely different from the people who do like 9th that I can't think of another way to describe it.)


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/06 00:12:21


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 AnomanderRake wrote:
I'm sort of baffled by this sentence. I've never felt like GW has attempted to gaslight me into believing the state of the game is my fault
Yeah. We've got people here at Dakka who do that for them, but I've never seen GW say or even imply that except for one instance where they called players who used screening* "unscrupulous", even though it was something they encouraged (the Guard 'Dex at the time even had examples of how to screen). But beyond that, yeah, never got the impression that they were blaming the players for the game's faults.



*In the 3rd Ed sense, models blocked LOS, allowing you to block shots to units behind other units.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/06 07:58:19


Post by: Not Online!!!


I am unsure...

See, i did initially start out with orks and later CSM...

Both dexes suffered quite heavily in 4th and 5th... So whilest 4th and 5th were core rulewise solid and highpoints of the game, personal experience with those armies was just miserable.. especially when you didn't want to field the meta builds.. like biker nobs and slaanesh whip tripple tripplets obliterators... (and i say this as someone that actually liked obliterators from a lore and game standpoint)

6th gave us with IA13 R&H. Which allowed for an actual Chaos army to be played and not just Marines -1 + spikes. So i had a better experience than many going forth into 7th and initially 7th was good fun aswell. Albeit the core rules did suffer.
7th though also introduced a modern monetisation scheme and the DLC-ification of the game with special rules releases... and got progressively worse. I stopped somehwere in the middle to end.. then got lured back in with GWpromising to improve in 8th... only to a game which has lost a lot of core rules, somehow bloated excessively and have the one saving grace i had during terrible GW times for the game being stripped, removed and now taken behind the shed.

for me, i guess that means, that GW never really improved.Out of a custommer perspective.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/06 11:58:46


Post by: Da Boss


I dunno, I loved the 4e Ork Codex. I wish it had been released earlier in the edition though! It was miles better than the 3e codex that preceded it.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/06 13:27:24


Post by: aphyon


 Da Boss wrote:
I dunno, I loved the 4e Ork Codex. I wish it had been released earlier in the edition though! It was miles better than the 3e codex that preceded it.


That is our preferred Ork codex for our hybrid 5th ed games.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/06 14:43:50


Post by: Wolflord Patrick


 Akar wrote:


The reasons differ from the OP. The most noticeable thing about 5th ed was that was the start of changes to the missions since GW had almost completely pulled out of running events. Grand Tournaments and eventually Games Days had become non-existent outside of WHW. Some of the bigger players like Adepticon, NOVA, and the ITC, altering the missions on their own started to become more common. I first noticed it when I attended Adepticon at the tail end of 4th. While it was cool, it wasn't an issue since there were still 40k tournaments around to be found.


There were tournaments were everywhere in 5th edition 40k. 'ITC' didn't exist yet, because Reece, Frankie and the rest of Zero Comp crew were still playing in them. (I know, I was there...) Heck, go back and look at the Tournament Discussion threads here in DakkaDakka back in 5th edition from 2008-2012. There were tournaments all over the place including GW GT's. Do you not remember the fiasco of the GW tournament circuit for the 'Golden Tickets' to play at the invitational in Vegas? (Which ended up being open to even those who didn't win a Golden Ticket, because GW had space to fill to cover their costs.)

To your point about 7th edition, my biggest gripe with it are indeed the formations. I know people who play 30k who absolutely love 7th edition, because it avoids all of that.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/06 15:01:10


Post by: vipoid


Not Online!!! wrote:
I am unsure...

See, i did initially start out with orks and later CSM...

Both dexes suffered quite heavily in 4th and 5th... So whilest 4th and 5th were core rulewise solid and highpoints of the game, personal experience with those armies was just miserable.. especially when you didn't want to field the meta builds.. like biker nobs and slaanesh whip tripple tripplets obliterators... (and i say this as someone that actually liked obliterators from a lore and game standpoint)

6th gave us with IA13 R&H. Which allowed for an actual Chaos army to be played and not just Marines -1 + spikes. So i had a better experience than many going forth into 7th and initially 7th was good fun aswell. Albeit the core rules did suffer.
7th though also introduced a modern monetisation scheme and the DLC-ification of the game with special rules releases... and got progressively worse. I stopped somehwere in the middle to end.. then got lured back in with GWpromising to improve in 8th... only to a game which has lost a lot of core rules, somehow bloated excessively and have the one saving grace i had during terrible GW times for the game being stripped, removed and now taken behind the shed.

for me, i guess that means, that GW never really improved.Out of a custommer perspective.


I know what you mean, actually. Even if an edition had excellent rules, a poor or outdated codex could really sour them.

For example, I liked many aspects of the 3rd and 4th edition rules but playing them at low point levels with the 3rd edition Necron codex was a decidedly miserable experience. At 500pts, for example, I could have 20 Warriors and a Necron Lord with 40pts of Wargear. That was my only option for a list. And this would be against my opponent's Chaos army, which could take some cheap troops and a tooled-up Daemon Prince. The latter shrugged off my pathetic bolter shots and could basically defeat my entire army by itself, even without the support of its troops. It did not make for fun games.

Cut to 7th and while I despised many aspects of the core rules, I had immense fun towards the end of the edition thanks entirely to the revised Corsair rules. Up until then, playing my Dark Eldar had been a tedious experience as their codex felt like it had been written for a completely different edition. Possibly a completely different game. Their anti-tank was garbage, their poison weapons were either ineffective or plain didn't work on the targets I needed them for, and they felt so outclassed that my only option was to spam the few least-worst units, with no spare points for fun or flavourful choices. In contrast, Corsairs felt like Dark Eldar: Good Version. Suddenly, I had a customisable HQ with some fantastically fun and flavourful options and abilities. My units actually felt agile on the battlefield. My anti-tank actually worked. And this was without making use of D-weapons or anything like that. Even just sticking to the more average options, it still represented a vastly improved experience.

I bring this up because I think it does represent a very important point in that, for me at least, the state of my codex is probably more important to me than the state of the core rules. It's certainly not an exaggeration to say that I'd prefer to play 7th edition with the Corsair book than 8th or 9th with the snorefest that is the DE book.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/06 15:10:53


Post by: Gadzilla666


The quality of your codex is definitely an important factor in how fun a particular edition was. That's why for me the "downward spiral" began at the end of 4th edition, with the release of the 4th edition CSM codex (which was essentially an early 5th edition codex), which sucked all of the fun and flavor out of the faction. Two codexes later, and we still haven't fully recovered.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/06 19:40:08


Post by: Karol


 winterman wrote:


Its gotten better since then. Not perfect, mind you. A lot better though. Regular FAQs? Now we complain they take a month, it was years in some cases, if ever. Missions designed for tournament play, in a handy book with other rules you need? Yeah this second outing was a mistep, but its still a far cry from the support before. And its not just us tourney players getting support, multiple Crusade expansions, campaign books, etc.


Okey, but those things have an impact only on players that did play in those editions. If someone started to play in 8th or 9th. What do they gain from the fact that they get told that once things were much worse? Plus GW support is super wonky. Yes they FAQ and errata stuff, for books they put out. If you don't happen to get a book, you can be stuck in limbo of bad rules for years. You can be stuck in a limbo of good rules to, but that is gamble thing you have no impact on.

Some with the new non core game stuff. With matched play being the most common way to play, being told that maybe their faction is broken or bad there, but okey in crusade, doesn't help much, if crusade isn't played as often as matched play. May as well tell people having a bad time playing tau, to play kill team or something similar.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/06 21:35:19


Post by: aphyon


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
The quality of your codex is definitely an important factor in how fun a particular edition was. That's why for me the "downward spiral" began at the end of 4th edition, with the release of the 4th edition CSM codex (which was essentially an early 5th edition codex), which sucked all of the fun and flavor out of the faction. Two codexes later, and we still haven't fully recovered.


That's especially true if you played through multiple editions and had codex quality that swung wildly. any chaos player who started with 3.5 has never felt justice since. or how i felt when the 4th ed dark angels codex murdered my chapter as the first of the new direction of toned down/simple rules design direction that lasted for 3 codexes before they tossed out that plan.(that and it invalidated entire army lists that were hard requirements in the previous book, suddenly you had $$$ spent on models you could no longer legally use).

Getting constant FAQs/erratta may seem like an improvement except when it is just repainting the sinking ship (bad core rules mechanics).

The big thing i see when it comes to codex VS edition you have something mostly solid like 5th that only had a couple serious issues like wound allocation in the core rules while you had better codexes for certain factions that were better before and did not translate well with a re-write for the new edition. keeping in mind some of these codexes existed across multiple editions before getting an update.

It is a reason why most of the oldhammer versions of the game give the players the ability to use the preferred codex that best fits the feel of the army within the framework of the rules the version of the game is based on.

I have yet to see a chaos player want to use anything other than the 3.5 codex. and there is actually much love for other 3rd and 4th ed codexes to be used or were actually used part way in to 5th edition when it was the "current edition".


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/06 22:03:45


Post by: Gert


Karol wrote:
Okey, but those things have an impact only on players that did play in those editions. If someone started to play in 8th or 9th. What do they gain from the fact that they get told that once things were much worse?

A flutter of hope that their experiences are indefinitely better than those of the past.

Plus GW support is super wonky. Yes they FAQ and errata stuff, for books they put out. If you don't happen to get a book, you can be stuck in limbo of bad rules for years. You can be stuck in a limbo of good rules to, but that is gamble thing you have no impact on.

Why would GW release an FAQ or an Errata for a book that hasn't been released. That makes no sense. A Beta Codex like SoB in CA 2018(?) maybe but FAQ's and Errata's are to fix issues identified within a specific book.
As for being stuck with bad rules for years, it's primarily up to the individual can choose to rectify this issue through many means. CSM were garbage in 6th and 7th so instead, I played Guard and fixed my problem until Daemonkin came out then I started playing CSM again.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/06 23:13:53


Post by: Karol


Yeah the flutter of hope lasts for about two years or two full FAQ/CA cycles. After that people either quit, or realise that GW only does fix changes when they bring out a new book.

If the ix to a problem, created by a company that is unwilling to fix it, is that you have to buy a new army, then we are trying to skim dangerous ground of argumentation. GW is responsible for the products they make. They can't say for 40 years, upps we didn't expect that, and just buy more stuff, maybe the next army you buy will not be bad.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/07 00:54:53


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Gert wrote:
Karol wrote:
Okey, but those things have an impact only on players that did play in those editions. If someone started to play in 8th or 9th. What do they gain from the fact that they get told that once things were much worse?

A flutter of hope that their experiences are indefinitely better than those of the past....


So...you're saying that for people who aren't having fun with the current state of 40k "cheer up, it used to be worse!" is supposed to make them, what, feel better about not having fun?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Gert wrote:
...
Plus GW support is super wonky. Yes they FAQ and errata stuff, for books they put out. If you don't happen to get a book, you can be stuck in limbo of bad rules for years. You can be stuck in a limbo of good rules to, but that is gamble thing you have no impact on.

Why would GW release an FAQ or an Errata for a book that hasn't been released. That makes no sense. A Beta Codex like SoB in CA 2018(?) maybe but FAQ's and Errata's are to fix issues identified within a specific book.
As for being stuck with bad rules for years, it's primarily up to the individual can choose to rectify this issue through many means. CSM were garbage in 6th and 7th so instead, I played Guard and fixed my problem until Daemonkin came out then I started playing CSM again.


So...the free PDF with the stopgap updates for the SM books at the start of 9th, including complete profiles for some units, were...what, a figment of our imagination?


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/07 01:40:42


Post by: Karol


 AnomanderRake wrote:
So...the free PDF with the stopgap updates for the SM books at the start of 9th, including complete profiles for some units, were...what, a figment of our imagination?

\What stop gap? Marines had their 2.0 books and then had their books updated en mass at the very start of 9th. And what ever good or bad, their state is hard to compare to something like the tau or gsc. And GW even knows it is late with their updates, they say stuff like all marines will have 2W, and here we are a year in to 9th, and no one at the studio is able to write a PDF with all csm, havocks, raptors etc have 2W. It just takes too much time and is too hard to pull off for a small company like GW. But spliting contet from a codex in to two books, that they seem to be able to do just fine. It is a miracle in a way.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/07 03:37:32


Post by: AnomanderRake


Karol wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
So...the free PDF with the stopgap updates for the SM books at the start of 9th, including complete profiles for some units, were...what, a figment of our imagination?

\What stop gap? Marines had their 2.0 books and then had their books updated en mass at the very start of 9th. And what ever good or bad, their state is hard to compare to something like the tau or gsc. And GW even knows it is late with their updates, they say stuff like all marines will have 2W, and here we are a year in to 9th, and no one at the studio is able to write a PDF with all csm, havocks, raptors etc have 2W. It just takes too much time and is too hard to pull off for a small company like GW. But spliting contet from a codex in to two books, that they seem to be able to do just fine. It is a miracle in a way.


You might not have seen it because the GK got skipped. They wrote a PDF that gave Deathwatch models their 2W for the, like, month they didn't have their supplement and didn't technically have any way of using their unique models that weren't in the core 9e Codex. That's the proof that GW could write a PDF with updated statlines for CSM stuff and chooses not to.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/07 03:49:00


Post by: aphyon


GW could write a PDF with updated statlines for CSM stuff and chooses not to


Nothing new there. took them what 2 years to give the dark angels an errata for their storm shields after they upgraded everybody elses to a 3++


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/07 04:37:25


Post by: Arschbombe


 aphyon wrote:

there is actually much love for other 3rd and 4th ed codexes to be used or were actually used part way in to 5th edition when it was the "current edition".


This is true. The two armies I enjoyed the most in 5th were Blood Angels and Eldar. Eldar never got a codex in 5th and didn't really fit the meta, but I had a lot of fun with them - on foot.

Blood Angels got the infamous White Dwarf codex at the tail end of 4th. Most veterans felt it to be a grave insult to the chapter, but it was the codex that got me started with BA. Because it was free. I read it first in WD split across two issues, but GW released it as a free pdf as well. Reading it inspired me to start the army. It wasn't as competitive in 5th as the vanilla dex or wolves, but I had fun with it and felt it had a lot of character (death company, Furioso dreads, veterans, honor guard etc). Once the actual 5th edition book (of bloody blood blood) came out in the spring of 2010 and the army became super popular with the folks who had been playing blue, green, and then blue-gray marines, I switched focus to the Eldar and Nids. The book was a big jump in power, but my hipster side didn't like playing mirror matches.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/07 07:46:39


Post by: aphyon


Yeah but as it was with 3rd and 4th ed codexes the eldar codex (i still use and own the 4th ed dex) was so full of flavor. you could build and play a viable list for every craftworld the way they should fight in the lore.

Band wagon jumpers when it comes to net listers and comp players has always been a thing, it is just more glaring now that GW is catering to them.

I mean i played salamanders since 5th and i never used vulkan he'ston in my army (but always bre'arth because dreadnoughts ) when they "got good" then got "not good" between 5th and 9th i never changed armies.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/07 09:40:54


Post by: Karol


 AnomanderRake wrote:

You might not have seen it because the GK got skipped. They wrote a PDF that gave Deathwatch models their 2W for the, like, month they didn't have their supplement and didn't technically have any way of using their unique models that weren't in the core 9e Codex. That's the proof that GW could write a PDF with updated statlines for CSM stuff and chooses not to.


okey, but this means it is even worse. GW doesn't suddenly wake up to find a baby basket with a print out of a new codex, they know stuff they are going to put out years in advance. Which means they knew that armies like csm or GK etc are not going to be updated for a long time, and armies like loyalist marines will be updated in the next 2-3 months, and yet they still decided that they should be getting an update. It feels like me sister getting presents on her birthdays and my birthdays, and me not getting anything, "because I am too old for it" we are not even 2 years age difference.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/09 08:25:55


Post by: Crispy78


Karol wrote:
It feels like me sister getting presents on her birthdays and my birthdays, and me not getting anything, "because I am too old for it" we are not even 2 years age difference.


Virtual hug.

Not that I imagine your parents give the slightest crap what some random dude on the internet says (not do I know their finances), but I'm 43 and still get birthday and christmas presents. I still get them for my parents too. It's not a kid thing. It's a family thing.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/09 11:01:24


Post by: stonehorse


3rd edition took 40k from what was a warband level game in 2nd edition into a platoon level game.

3rd edition made 40k a good wargame, it could handle the scale well due to the abstractions made in the leap from 2nd to 3rd.

4th for me was the start of the demise, main thing was the changes made to rapid fire weapons. In 3rd edition the way they worked made the trade off between standing still & shooting, or moving very clear.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/09 12:04:09


Post by: The_Real_Chris


 Akar wrote:
There is no doubt in my mind though that 9th is by far the worst edition to ever be put to print.


Buuutttt... they did finally fix cover (Too bad the 'competitive' tourney cover set up is just dire and the biggest thing stopping me from ever wanting to play those games.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I wonder if the rot isn't due to Primaris and the jump to 2 wounds, then everything going up in defense and offense to vaguely balance out. My dice buckets have rarely been bigger!


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/09 16:05:49


Post by: Karol


Crispy78 wrote:
Karol wrote:
It feels like me sister getting presents on her birthdays and my birthdays, and me not getting anything, "because I am too old for it" we are not even 2 years age difference.


Virtual hug.

Not that I imagine your parents give the slightest crap what some random dude on the internet says (not do I know their finances), but I'm 43 and still get birthday and christmas presents. I still get them for my parents too. It's not a kid thing. It's a family thing.


Well I still get stuff. For example I have, and this I just can't explain. TWO start collecting lumineth lords. Both from my dads sisters. The first I got when they came out, so I at least know how she could have gotten her hands on that one, but how she got another box in june this year is beyond my understanding.

But even with it being okey to talk about the new codex, and me not liking the new one that much. I still think that 9th is a much better edition then 8th. Like miles high. I just wanted GK to have 4-5 months of good fun time. Instead we got a necron style codex, only with one instead of a bunch of models. Balanced books don't age well in w40k from what I have seen in 8th ed.

If you get an OP one, you can ride it out all edition. Eldar could do that practically the entire 8th ed. Even when marines drop with their 2.0 books, they were still okey to play. On the other hand something like DE or DG or CSM got the balanced booked treatment and it did not go well for them.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/09 16:30:30


Post by: Tycho


Agree with everyone on the stupidity of the statement "The first edition someone played will always be the one they think is best." My first edition was Rouge Trader. It was literally BARELY playable. More and more I am coming around to thinking 5th was maybe the best over-all, or possibly 8th pre-Marines 2.0.


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
I'm sort of baffled by this sentence. I've never felt like GW has attempted to gaslight me into believing the state of the game is my fault
Yeah. We've got people here at Dakka who do that for them, but I've never seen GW say or even imply that except for one instance where they called players who used screening* "unscrupulous", even though it was something they encouraged (the Guard 'Dex at the time even had examples of how to screen). But beyond that, yeah, never got the impression that they were blaming the players for the game's faults.



*In the 3rd Ed sense, models blocked LOS, allowing you to block shots to units behind other units.


The only things I can think of that even come close to GW blaming the players for the state of the game are a few one-off and kind of haughty quotes from a few designers over the years. Cavatore for example, going to, I think it was Adepticon in 8th, seeing how people were using flyers and jump infantry and scolding us all for playing the game that way. Which to me was a lot less about GW as an entity blaming us, and a lot more about the disconnect certain designers have with their own rules. Don't write 'em that way, and they won't be played that way. lol But yeah, I can't think of a time GW proper actually blamed the player base for the state of the game ...


This thread, (and the other one similar to this), show that there are more players unhappy with this edition more than any other edition that I've seen. There are quite a few of us who are sitting on armies that were previously considered competitive, simply not included in 'Matched Play'. There are players sitting in a void who don't fit into the 'Narrative' mission set, and have no place in 'Competitive Matched Play'. There are groups going back to earlier editions, or adapting earlier editions missions into 9th, just so that they have something to do while waiting. Others have simply left.


Nah. This not the worst it's ever been. We still haven't reached 7th ed levels of dissatisfaction. I don't understand how your army doesn't "fit in matched play"? Are you saying it's been made illegal somehow? Like you have a KDK army or something like that? Regardless of what anyone thinks RE: balance in 9th - it's still nowhere near the IMBALANCE of 7th. There were armies in 7th where, if you yourself did not show up with one of "those" and you were facing "one of those" you were going to lose. Auto lose in fact. There would be nothing you could do. Absolutely nothing. Add to that the fact that bloat was so bad you needed even more rules sources on hand than you need in 8th/9th and the fact that games were taking forever - no. 7th was by far the edition most reviled. 9th might be getting close, but 7th nearly shut down the tournament scene in the U.S., was responsible for killing off three game stores in my area, cause many long running 40k podcasts to either shift to covering a different game or shut down entirely (RIP 11th Company), and at one point even turned Dakka into a bit of a ghost town i the 40k General Discussion area.

9th has a long way to go before we hit that point imo. My group is giving it a little break, but we plan on coming back to it at some point, and even with that said - if we were to go play today, I know I can bring my worst army to a game and still have a better chance at doing something than my BEST armies had in 7th.




The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/09 16:44:58


Post by: Noir Eternal


Tycho wrote:

7th was by far the edition most reviled. 9th might be getting close, but 7th nearly shut down the tournament scene in the U.S., was responsible for killing off three game stores in my area, cause many long running 40k podcasts to either shift to covering a different game or shut down entirely (RIP 11th Company), and at one point even turned Dakka into a bit of a ghost town i the 40k General Discussion area.


I am glad I am not the only one who had a similar experience during 6th/7th.

We had tournaments where less than 10 people would show up on the weekends when we used to have 3x the number of players during 5th edition. At least 80% of the people I played games with in 5th edition had quit the game. And we lost three game stores during that time as well.

When they cut off 6th edition short I thought they would address some of the problems but instead they just added a bunch more I didn't even bother trying out 7th edition.

Not being able to assault out of transports (massive CC nerf to many armies), many armies not having access to anti-flyer guns without the Sky-Fire objective markers, formations, re-roll 2+ Invulnerable saves, summoning, invisibility, the list just goes on and on. The codex's almost didn't matter as the core rules were just so broken.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/09 17:04:02


Post by: a_typical_hero


I'd like to add the introduction of knight-esque models to that list. They always felt out of place for me.

Knights, Wraithknights, that Tau one, Stompaz, ...


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/09 17:07:59


Post by: Tycho


a_typical_hero wrote:
I'd like to add the introduction of knight-esque models to that list. They always felt out of place for me.

Knights, Wraithknights, that Tau one, Stompaz, ...


It is truly saying something about 7th that, while I agree the Knight Titans felt mildly out of place, they weren't even in the top 10 most OP things! lol



The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/09 17:34:15


Post by: Noir Eternal


Tycho wrote:


It is truly saying something about 7th that, while I agree the Knight Titans felt mildly out of place, they weren't even in the top 10 most OP things! lol



That isn't even mentioning stuff being broken in the direction of useless. No one should forget entire codex's were designed around the Soul Fire special rule, the most worthless special rule I think to exist in 40k (or damn near close). And GW had the opportunity to fix it during the 6th-7th transition and chose not to.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/09 17:42:17


Post by: Nurglitch


a_typical_hero wrote:
I'd like to add the introduction of knight-esque models to that list. They always felt out of place for me.

Knights, Wraithknights, that Tau one, Stompaz, ...

This. These things are just big, boring bricks of points that make the game less fun. Which is weird because Titans and other big stuff in Epic Space Marine (2nd ed) worked pretty well because of how they were broken up into chunks, so 900pts of Warlord Titan was as fun and interesting as 900pts of Land Raider Company; they did different things, but they were clearly playing the same game.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/09 18:28:44


Post by: AnomanderRake


a_typical_hero wrote:
I'd like to add the introduction of knight-esque models to that list. They always felt out of place for me.

Knights, Wraithknights, that Tau one, Stompaz, ...


One big superheavy in a big (2,500-3,000pt) game never felt that out of place to me, it was when they started writing "oh, your army is all superheavies now" or "you can have a superheavy in a 1,000pt game" (which was, oddly enough, 6e!) that it started to feel weird. If you're playing a non-Questoris army in 30k where you have one LoW slot per detachment and the 25% rule (so you need to be in a 2,500pt game to take your 600pt Legion superheavy at all) they feel all right to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Nurglitch wrote:
a_typical_hero wrote:
I'd like to add the introduction of knight-esque models to that list. They always felt out of place for me.

Knights, Wraithknights, that Tau one, Stompaz, ...

This. These things are just big, boring bricks of points that make the game less fun. Which is weird because Titans and other big stuff in Epic Space Marine (2nd ed) worked pretty well because of how they were broken up into chunks, so 900pts of Warlord Titan was as fun and interesting as 900pts of Land Raider Company; they did different things, but they were clearly playing the same game.


The small superheavies didn't push the durability bar that much higher in practice (13/13/12 6HP Knight with a 4++ in one facing at a time; it was immune to non-Explodes damage results, but if you rolled well two lascannon hits could drop it. Compare to a 14/14/14 4HP Land Raider it's tougher, but not a lot tougher.); I think it's more of a problem in 8th/9th because you can't get around the ion shield by moving the way you could in 6th/7th. Also the changes to weapon stats mean that Knight guns in 8th/9th are efficient against a way broader range of targets than in 6th/7th; the basic RFBC used to be pretty poor anti-armour (you couldn't kill a Rhino from full health in one turn with it, though you could leave it immobilized with no gun and one HP left if you rolled well), and the AGC couldn't even damage another Knight (S6 into AV 13). The D-strength melee and Stomp could do a lot of work up close, but getting up close required you to make it much easier for someone to get around the ion shield.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/09 19:35:07


Post by: Nurglitch


 AnomanderRake wrote:
The small superheavies didn't push the durability bar that much higher in practice (13/13/12 6HP Knight with a 4++ in one facing at a time; it was immune to non-Explodes damage results, but if you rolled well two lascannon hits could drop it. Compare to a 14/14/14 4HP Land Raider it's tougher, but not a lot tougher.); I think it's more of a problem in 8th/9th because you can't get around the ion shield by moving the way you could in 6th/7th. Also the changes to weapon stats mean that Knight guns in 8th/9th are efficient against a way broader range of targets than in 6th/7th; the basic RFBC used to be pretty poor anti-armour (you couldn't kill a Rhino from full health in one turn with it, though you could leave it immobilized with no gun and one HP left if you rolled well), and the AGC couldn't even damage another Knight (S6 into AV 13). The D-strength melee and Stomp could do a lot of work up close, but getting up close required you to make it much easier for someone to get around the ion shield.

Yes, one feels they learned the wrong lesson when comparing Knights to Wraithknights in 6th/7th. It's like how they took pinning and going to ground out of the game, that it seemed like it felt bad to have to choose between doing nothing and getting wiped out, like how Knight players got to see their big boring brick compared poorly to the Wraithknight's big, boring brick.

What I think they should have done was implement pinning more broadly, lower Leadership down to a maximum of 9 for Chapter Masters and lower for everything else, strip out Fearless and And They Shall Know No Fear (or just allow players with these rules a bonus to the usual morale rules), and make stuff like Wraithknights and Knights (and vehicles) into collections of profiles like all the other units in the game.

Turning stuff into bricks is partly why we see the escalation that we do, because the only metric available for differentiating units is by how killy they are. Having psychology like morale and pinning and maybe stupidity and frenzy back in the mix would give players more interesting things to do then just maximize bonuses to kill stuff.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/09 19:44:22


Post by: moreorless


 Nurglitch wrote:
a_typical_hero wrote:
I'd like to add the introduction of knight-esque models to that list. They always felt out of place for me.

Knights, Wraithknights, that Tau one, Stompaz, ...

This. These things are just big, boring bricks of points that make the game less fun. Which is weird because Titans and other big stuff in Epic Space Marine (2nd ed) worked pretty well because of how they were broken up into chunks, so 900pts of Warlord Titan was as fun and interesting as 900pts of Land Raider Company; they did different things, but they were clearly playing the same game.


I have always felt that when you get to that size there should be the option of targetting different parts of such units, the ability to knock out one of the big weapons would make for a much more interesting tactical trade off I would say. You take it as far as Titans and really I think it becomes a bit silly when your can't target a weapon the size of a super heavy tank.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/09 20:08:18


Post by: Daedalus81


 AnomanderRake wrote:
The small superheavies didn't push the durability bar that much higher in practice (13/13/12 6HP Knight with a 4++ in one facing at a time; it was immune to non-Explodes damage results, but if you rolled well two lascannon hits could drop it. Compare to a 14/14/14 4HP Land Raider it's tougher, but not a lot tougher.); I think it's more of a problem in 8th/9th because you can't get around the ion shield by moving the way you could in 6th/7th. Also the changes to weapon stats mean that Knight guns in 8th/9th are efficient against a way broader range of targets than in 6th/7th; the basic RFBC used to be pretty poor anti-armour (you couldn't kill a Rhino from full health in one turn with it, though you could leave it immobilized with no gun and one HP left if you rolled well), and the AGC couldn't even damage another Knight (S6 into AV 13). The D-strength melee and Stomp could do a lot of work up close, but getting up close required you to make it much easier for someone to get around the ion shield.


You were still able to rotate in 7th, so, if you didn't have multiple assets to take advantage of that - fuggedaboutit.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/09 20:40:27


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
The small superheavies didn't push the durability bar that much higher in practice (13/13/12 6HP Knight with a 4++ in one facing at a time; it was immune to non-Explodes damage results, but if you rolled well two lascannon hits could drop it. Compare to a 14/14/14 4HP Land Raider it's tougher, but not a lot tougher.); I think it's more of a problem in 8th/9th because you can't get around the ion shield by moving the way you could in 6th/7th. Also the changes to weapon stats mean that Knight guns in 8th/9th are efficient against a way broader range of targets than in 6th/7th; the basic RFBC used to be pretty poor anti-armour (you couldn't kill a Rhino from full health in one turn with it, though you could leave it immobilized with no gun and one HP left if you rolled well), and the AGC couldn't even damage another Knight (S6 into AV 13). The D-strength melee and Stomp could do a lot of work up close, but getting up close required you to make it much easier for someone to get around the ion shield.


You were still able to rotate in 7th, so, if you didn't have multiple assets to take advantage of that - fuggedaboutit.


Yeah. If all your AT weapons capable of doing meaningful damage to AV13 are in one place the Knight's going to beat you up. It encourages you to put AT units in multiple places on the board, or take fast AT capable of hopping arcs, rather than just building a firebase that sits in one place and tries to pound through the ion shield. (Remember this is pre-auras so you're not giving up that much by spreading out.)

That said this is undermined some by GW's refusal to define arcs as 90 degrees rather than by the corners of the mini, in practice if you took a shooty Knight its front arc was so wide it could cover most of the table and there were armies that had a very hard time dealing with it. I'm not saying Knights didn't present a problem in 7th if you weren't prepared for them, just that they felt fairer to me in 7th than they did in 8th/9th.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/09 20:42:00


Post by: Nurglitch


Here's what a Warlord Titan Hit Location Diagram looked like in 1992 or so, breaking a Warlord Titan up into targets.



Now, the problem was twofold in that after hitting the Warlord then you picked a square depending on the Titan's facing and rolled two dice, each with four blank sides, one with Up/Down replacing the 1 & 6, one with Right/Left replacing the 1 & 6. If the shot went off the diagram you missed. Which was annoying since it added a step to the disappointment of missing.

There was also no reason not to aim for the one-shot kill on the reactor.

But, without that one-shot kill, it worked well. The Gargants, for example, would catch fire and maybe explode if they had too many going at once.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/09 21:15:18


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Nurglitch wrote:
Here's what a Warlord Titan Hit Location Diagram looked like in 1992 or so, breaking a Warlord Titan up into targets...


I've got a draft pseudo-Epic ruleset I've been working on occasionally over the years that lifts the basic idea of the Warmachine damage grids for big war engines, only your damage goes into the facing you're attacking from rather than always counting down from the top, so it's amusing to see that this was here first.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/09 21:36:00


Post by: Insectum7


I still have trouble understanding why they didn't put any real locational damage mechanics onto the Knights etc. when they were introduced into the game. The fact that the Epic-scale hade more resolution to resolve anti-titan fire than 40K does to handle anti-Knight fire seems incredibly stupid.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/09 22:10:00


Post by: The Red Hobbit


 Nurglitch wrote:
Here's what a Warlord Titan Hit Location Diagram looked like in 1992 or so, breaking a Warlord Titan up into targets.

That's really interesting, thanks for sharing. Would have been fun if they incorporated a system like that for Knights into 40k instead of the one size fits all T7-8 and two fistfuls of Wounds they did for all vehicles.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/09 22:23:23


Post by: A.T.


 Nurglitch wrote:
There was also no reason not to aim for the one-shot kill on the reactor.
To be fair the head, legs, carapace, and indirectly the weapons were also all one-shot kills. The reactor was notable for doing what knights did in 6th - walk into the middle of your army and then explode killing half of it, which was a barrel of laughs with the wraightknights after they had finished d-strengthing any expensive vehicles you made the mistake of bringing to the game.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/09 22:25:41


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Insectum7 wrote:
I still have trouble understanding why they didn't put any real locational damage mechanics onto the Knights etc. when they were introduced into the game. The fact that the Epic-scale hade more resolution to resolve anti-titan fire than 40K does to handle anti-Knight fire seems incredibly stupid.


Titans are a core mechanic in Epic. Titans are a side expansion they didn't expect anyone to play in 40k. Or were, before Knights, but by that point they were doing a lot of copy-pasting without paying that much attention to whether the army books they were writing would actually work.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/09 23:12:27


Post by: Nurglitch


A.T. wrote:
 Nurglitch wrote:
There was also no reason not to aim for the one-shot kill on the reactor.
To be fair the head, legs, carapace, and indirectly the weapons were also all one-shot kills. The reactor was notable for doing what knights did in 6th - walk into the middle of your army and then explode killing half of it, which was a barrel of laughs with the wraightknights after they had finished d-strengthing any expensive vehicles you made the mistake of bringing to the game.

Yeah, that's kinda my point about looking at the problem (the Wraithknight) and using that as a solution instead of dialing it back to the Knight level. 8th edition had the right away in putting everything on the same page with a standard profile, but the graduated profile (1/2 wounds, 1/4 wounds, dead) really just repeated the problem with the Wraithknight in 6th in that it made games worse, not better, because it was a boring brick with no answer but to kill it.

Mind you, D-weapons and instant death and a bunch of other things were the result of making the scale 1-10 for no reason that's ever been clearly explicated.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/09 23:20:30


Post by: Jarms48


I remember fighting a titan before. One of the blokes who worked at the mines when I still lived in my home town had a one. Can't remember if it was a warhound or reaver, but I remember teaming up with a Tau friend to fight it.

I never thought they were overpowered. We beat it fairly easily. My tanks and heavy weapon teams basically stripped the shields, then my buddies railguns would try to hurt it. Then I dropped my suicide stormtroopers and did a ton of damage to it.

Back then it had some rule where you could actually get inside its void shield. Something like within 12 inch and you could avoid the shield entirely. It was pretty fun.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/10 01:27:05


Post by: trexmeyer


When did unique Nob Biker cheese start? I remember that being horrific and that bled into Grey Knight Terminator cheese, which didn't seem to peak as badly, but it all got wiped away at some point with wound allocations changing.

Isn't the real problem the community or more broadly, male competiveness in general? Men generally want to win and the community is male dominated. The issue of metagaming to an extreme taking precedence over fun or narrative seems to be a constant through the ages.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/10 01:42:38


Post by: Daedalus81


 trexmeyer wrote:
When did unique Nob Biker cheese start? I remember that being horrific and that bled into Grey Knight Terminator cheese, which didn't seem to peak as badly, but it all got wiped away at some point with wound allocations changing.

Isn't the real problem the community or more broadly, male competiveness in general? Men generally want to win and the community is male dominated. The issue of metagaming to an extreme taking precedence over fun or narrative seems to be a constant through the ages.


When in Rome...though honestly it isn't very fair to try and pin the flaws of a system on competitive players.

GK peaked pretty badly in my area. Ard Boyz like a decade or so ago was 22 people. 19 of them were GK.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/10 01:52:13


Post by: Insectum7


 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
I still have trouble understanding why they didn't put any real locational damage mechanics onto the Knights etc. when they were introduced into the game. The fact that the Epic-scale hade more resolution to resolve anti-titan fire than 40K does to handle anti-Knight fire seems incredibly stupid.


Titans are a core mechanic in Epic. Titans are a side expansion they didn't expect anyone to play in 40k. Or were, before Knights, but by that point they were doing a lot of copy-pasting without paying that much attention to whether the army books they were writing would actually work.

Still, the higher resolution game (40K) winds up with the lower resolution mechanics. Not only is it silly, but it's a huge missed opportumity.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/10 06:07:27


Post by: aphyon


 Insectum7 wrote:
I still have trouble understanding why they didn't put any real locational damage mechanics onto the Knights etc. when they were introduced into the game. The fact that the Epic-scale hade more resolution to resolve anti-titan fire than 40K does to handle anti-Knight fire seems incredibly stupid.


That is second edition stuff, even sentinels had hit locations like leg. it makes the game a bit to complicated for an army battle game. If you want that level of detail play classic battletech. or second edition 40k


We recently did a 5th ed game using the old 3rd ed ruled for the warhound titan when it wass designed for normal games of 40K and it is far from the problem that people had with flyers and superheavies seen in 7th.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/10 06:36:46


Post by: Insectum7


 aphyon wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
I still have trouble understanding why they didn't put any real locational damage mechanics onto the Knights etc. when they were introduced into the game. The fact that the Epic-scale hade more resolution to resolve anti-titan fire than 40K does to handle anti-Knight fire seems incredibly stupid.


That is second edition stuff, even sentinels had hit locations like leg. it makes the game a bit to complicated for an army battle game. If you want that level of detail play classic battletech. or second edition 40k


We recently did a 5th ed game using the old 3rd ed ruled for the warhound titan when it wass designed for normal games of 40K and it is far from the problem that people had with flyers and superheavies seen in 7th.
I don't recall superheavy rules for 3rd ed unless you're talking about the Mass Points system that was used in the Vehicle Design Rules.

I disagree about keeping that detail for Superheavies out of 40k though. For such big models there's not many ways to interact with them, and being able to do things like target the legs to slow them down, or target an arm to attempt to cripple a key weapon would have been welcome additions and wouldn't have been cumbersome. We're talking about a game where individual squad-member placement can be critical at times.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/10 07:04:20


Post by: Racerguy180


 Insectum7 wrote:
Spoiler:
 aphyon wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
I still have trouble understanding why they didn't put any real locational damage mechanics onto the Knights etc. when they were introduced into the game. The fact that the Epic-scale hade more resolution to resolve anti-titan fire than 40K does to handle anti-Knight fire seems incredibly stupid.


That is second edition stuff, even sentinels had hit locations like leg. it makes the game a bit to complicated for an army battle game. If you want that level of detail play classic battletech. or second edition 40k


We recently did a 5th ed game using the old 3rd ed ruled for the warhound titan when it wass designed for normal games of 40K and it is far from the problem that people had with flyers and superheavies seen in 7th.
I don't recall superheavy rules for 3rd ed unless you're talking about the Mass Points system that was used in the Vehicle Design Rules.


I disagree about keeping that detail for Superheavies out of 40k though. For such big models there's not many ways to interact with them, and being able to do things like target the legs to slow them down, or target an arm to attempt to cripple a key weapon would have been welcome additions and wouldn't have been cumbersome. We're talking about a game where individual squad-member placement can be critical at times.


I would welcome this, only for superheavies.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/10 07:57:05


Post by: aphyon


 Insectum7 wrote:
 aphyon wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
I still have trouble understanding why they didn't put any real locational damage mechanics onto the Knights etc. when they were introduced into the game. The fact that the Epic-scale hade more resolution to resolve anti-titan fire than 40K does to handle anti-Knight fire seems incredibly stupid.


That is second edition stuff, even sentinels had hit locations like leg. it makes the game a bit to complicated for an army battle game. If you want that level of detail play classic battletech. or second edition 40k


We recently did a 5th ed game using the old 3rd ed ruled for the warhound titan when it wass designed for normal games of 40K and it is far from the problem that people had with flyers and superheavies seen in 7th.
I don't recall superheavy rules for 3rd ed unless you're talking about the Mass Points system that was used in the Vehicle Design Rules.

I disagree about keeping that detail for Superheavies out of 40k though. For such big models there's not many ways to interact with them, and being able to do things like target the legs to slow them down, or target an arm to attempt to cripple a key weapon would have been welcome additions and wouldn't have been cumbersome. We're talking about a game where individual squad-member placement can be critical at times.


FW actually has a seperate entire set of damage result rules for superheavy vehicles/flyers in 3rd that appeared in the original releases of imperial armor 1-3 for using them in normal games as apocalypse did not exist at the time.

It was a simpler system than 2nd but it did have a different damage table that is basically what you are looking for.

I will give you an example that actually happened to me in the last game.

penetrating hit result 2
engine damage
vehicle removes d3 inches of movement, if movement is reduced to 0 the vehicle is immobilized.


Now keep in mind almost all superheavies vehicles could only move 6", a titan could choose to move from 6- 12" but was reduced to firing a single weapon system if it moved that fast. .

So it is not directly targeting the legs but the effect is the same....until the onboard tech priest manages to repair the damage of course





The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/10 07:59:38


Post by: kirotheavenger


Yeah locational damage for superheavies would be a much better way of doing things.

You could easily split them up into 6 locations; motive systems, weapon 1, weapon 2, weapon 3, commander, body; for example.
The datasheet should then define what hitting/damaging each of those did.
You could say randomly determine which location the attack hits, or choose the location for -1 to-hit or something.

They're super heavies, they deserve to be a little interesting.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/10 14:32:23


Post by: Pacific


In 2nd ed. Epic Space Marine/NetEpic I would say the hit allocation chart doesn't slow down the game massively. Yes you have to refer to the chart/damage, but the resulting variability of how damage occurs is more than worth it and can be tremendous fun. Titans can wander around with no arms trying to stand on stuff or get taken out by a single lucky head or reactor shot, Gargants stomp around gradually being consumed by flames as more and more shots hammer them, and finally the head pops off. Eldar Titans are as annoying as hell with their holo-fields making so many shots miss, and then you'll finally nail one with a Volcano Cannon shot and its the most satisfying thing ever! I definitely prefer it to the far more abstract version in Epic Armageddon, which treats Titans and superheavies as though they have an HP bar. And not having some sort of equivalent in 40k is hilarious if true, given the scale of the game.

I would probably agree with the OP as 6th was the edition that finally finished me off from the game. I basically just got tired of collections of miniatures that cost hundreds of pounds and had taken months to built and paint getting carpet-bombed by what looked like Tomix toys, and collections of unpainted, sometimes unbuilt, marine armies. I know lots of games have players that don't want to put the effort in, but 40k seemed to be most egregious in that regard, and it was too important an element for me.

I can totally see why Oldhammer is so popular. You have your rules collection, no new rules or codex release is going to suddenly torpedo them. People seem to put a massive effort in with the preparation of the army too, so the whole visual and theme thing is probably much stronger (certainly looking at some of the Oldhammer FB groups).


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/12 21:31:38


Post by: moreorless


 Nurglitch wrote:
Here's what a Warlord Titan Hit Location Diagram looked like in 1992 or so, breaking a Warlord Titan up into targets.

Now, the problem was twofold in that after hitting the Warlord then you picked a square depending on the Titan's facing and rolled two dice, each with four blank sides, one with Up/Down replacing the 1 & 6, one with Right/Left replacing the 1 & 6. If the shot went off the diagram you missed. Which was annoying since it added a step to the disappointment of missing.

There was also no reason not to aim for the one-shot kill on the reactor.

But, without that one-shot kill, it worked well. The Gargants, for example, would catch fire and maybe explode if they had too many going at once.


The mechanics in that situation I'd agree meant that people rarely targeted the weapons, normally only with attacks that had no AV modifer or scatters. I wouldnt say that means a mechanic of being able to target the weapons is a bad thing though, I mean most obviously 40K isnt a game with nearly as much potential for one hit kills of big units so having Knight/Titan weapons targetable but with significantly lower wounds(and maybe lower toughness) than the rest of the model seems like it would be workable.

It would really shift things away from such armies either being shot of the board or shooting an opponent off of it in a turn or two, they would actually be more likely to survive as opponents would be more likely to expend damage going after weapons rather than the kill.

Really for models of that points cost I don't think more complex mechanics are a bad thing, an army of knights or even a Titan in a big non apoc game the player isnt needing to keep track of nearly as much as most armies so adding in a few more rules for them seems fine to me as it wouldnt bog the game down. Honestly with Titans they could add in a load of complexity and not really bog things down, things like having reactor power that can be allocated to certain systems boosting movement, weapons, bringing back void shields, etc would make them a lot more fun to play I'd imagine.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/12 23:03:15


Post by: Nurglitch


I rather like how vehicles worked in 5th edition (I think it was 5th...) where a hit could kill (unlikely) or shake/stun/immobilize/weapon destroy with a bonus towards the next hit. It seems to go better with the whole Toughness/Armour save concept where a successful roll to wound represented the hit doing enough damage to put a trooper down, and an Armour save representing hitting a location defended by armour. I think dropping the multiple wounds, hull points, and so on would have put heroes, monsters, and tanks on the level. Opening up the S/T scales with the old to-wound chart would have maintained the old AV benefit of some weapons being virtually useless against some targets just like 1+ saves in ESM (2nd).

Would speed things up without keeping track of wounds too.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/13 07:35:18


Post by: Blackie


Vehicles that weren't AV13 or 14 were actually useless since ANY result on the damage table was dreadful. Light and medium armored vehicles are much tougher and fun to play now.

AV13-14 vehicles were much more resilient to firepower but a single blow of a S 9-10 dude (with orks I had plenty of those) could wreck them with little effort.

Not to mention the limitations on firepower with firing arcs and movement.

In 5th I had to bring gimmicks to make my vehicles work: 3 battlewagons or 9 killa kanz to 1500 points games, all shielded by a KFF which gave them 4+. Unplayable units otherwise, but very competitive if spammed and under the KFF effect.

No, overall vehicles are in a much better spot now. Of course people can like older mechanics and considered them more fun to play, but if we're talking about usefulness of the vehicles now they finally do something.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/13 10:07:09


Post by: Karol


The only vehicles that seem to be used a lot are those that are cheap, those that have inv saves or which have fly. Which for marines, the army that makes up the majority of all armies played, mans that the vehicles in 9th are not that good. LR die too fast, pods and rhinos can't transport a lot of the units being used, the impulsor cost so much, that you may as well buy another unit you want instead of the transport. The various primaris tanks have a bad cost to damage to resiliance efficiency. I don't think many people use the marine flyers too. So maybe the vehicle situation got better for some armies, but not the core audiance GW has.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/13 10:27:54


Post by: Blackie


I play 3 razorbacks every game with my SW. Now they're not crappy AV11, which meant that a single anti tank hit had very high chances to instant kill or cripple it. Not to mention firepower, 12 ass can shots instead of 4 in the old times? With no limitations for movement or line of sight.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/13 11:17:16


Post by: A.T.


 Blackie wrote:
Vehicles that weren't AV13 or 14 were actually useless since ANY result on the damage table was dreadful. Light and medium armored vehicles are much tougher and fun to play now.
Many of the top-tier lists in 5th were built around AV10-12 vehicles with little or no special protection. Even the least of the factions (radical daemonhunters) could run a potent parking lot.

The 5e damage chart was too reserved and the 4e chart too brutal for the higher costs ... ror transports at least, 5e vehicles spent a lot of time shaken and stunned.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/13 11:19:16


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Yeah no kidding.

My company of Chimeras certainly begs to differ. Did just fine with them.



The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/13 11:21:41


Post by: a_typical_hero


Karol wrote:
The only vehicles that seem to be used a lot are those that are cheap, those that have inv saves or which have fly. Which for marines, the army that makes up the majority of all armies played, mans that the vehicles in 9th are not that good. LR die too fast, pods and rhinos can't transport a lot of the units being used, the impulsor cost so much, that you may as well buy another unit you want instead of the transport. The various primaris tanks have a bad cost to damage to resiliance efficiency. I don't think many people use the marine flyers too. So maybe the vehicle situation got better for some armies, but not the core audiance GW has.


A Land Raider's problem is not necessarily that it dies too fast. It just doesn't pull enough weight for the points. T8 and a 2+ save is pretty good even without an invul against most weapons. The main problem for Marine transports is, that there is nothing worthwhile to transport.

Speaking from a tournament POV, what would you want to transport?
Vanguard Vets have Jump Packs.
Your Multi-meltas are carried by attack bikes.
Your Dreadnoughts don't want to be transported, as they would lose firepower.
HQs? Either want to run along Dreadnoughts for buffs or got a bike or Jump Pack themselves.
Troops either infiltrate onto objectives or sit on their own homefield objective. And yes, taking a second squad here is then just more beneficial than having an Impulsor.

Devastator Squads could make use of a Drop Pod as expensive suicide units.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/13 11:30:05


Post by: aphyon


 Blackie wrote:
Vehicles that weren't AV13 or 14 were actually useless since ANY result on the damage table was dreadful. Light and medium armored vehicles are much tougher and fun to play now.

AV13-14 vehicles were much more resilient to firepower but a single blow of a S 9-10 dude (with orks I had plenty of those) could wreck them with little effort.

Not to mention the limitations on firepower with firing arcs and movement.

In 5th I had to bring gimmicks to make my vehicles work: 3 battlewagons or 9 killa kanz to 1500 points games, all shielded by a KFF which gave them 4+. Unplayable units otherwise, but very competitive if spammed and under the KFF effect.

No, overall vehicles are in a much better spot now. Of course people can like older mechanics and considered them more fun to play, but if we're talking about usefulness of the vehicles now they finally do something.


It really depends on what type of game you want. AV facing and destroyable weapons etc. are more of a sim/wargame we can identify from the real world. the wound system is an abstract game mechanic for more game and less simulation.

i dislike the wound system as it is now implemented because it is done poorly DUST uses a wound system mixed with a sim system so that vehicles still retain some aspect of recognizable behavior IE certain weapons cannot "wound" vehicles if the armor class rating is to high(light infantry weapons cannot hurt vehicles above class 3 for example because those are not open topped etc..) or keeping weapon firing arcs with a wound mechanic.

I also have quite a different experience than you with 5th edition which our group still plays. My AV12 dreadnoughts have proven to be quite resilient. and bringing any armor including AV10/11 requires you to take multiples so the enemy force cannot focus all of it's AT fire on a very few targets.


A.T. wrote:

The 5e damage chart was too reserved and the 4e chart too brutal for the higher costs ... ror transports at least, 5e vehicles spent a lot of time shaken and stunned.


We solved that problem by simply putting the snap fire mechanic into our 5th editions games so vehicles could at least contribute something while stunned/shaken. Not all the best rules were in one edition sadly and some great rules were tossed out for what reason the emperor only knows. that's the reason why our groups and Mezmorki's prohammer does a good job fixing that very problem. .




The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/13 11:44:10


Post by: ccs


 Blackie wrote:
Vehicles that weren't AV13 or 14 were actually useless since ANY result on the damage table was dreadful. Light and medium armored vehicles are much tougher and fun to play now.

AV13-14 vehicles were much more resilient to firepower but a single blow of a S 9-10 dude (with orks I had plenty of those) could wreck them with little effort.

Not to mention the limitations on firepower with firing arcs and movement.

In 5th I had to bring gimmicks to make my vehicles work: 3 battlewagons or 9 killa kanz to 1500 points games, all shielded by a KFF which gave them 4+. Unplayable units otherwise, but very competitive if spammed and under the KFF effect.

No, overall vehicles are in a much better spot now. Of course people can like older mechanics and considered them more fun to play, but if we're talking about usefulness of the vehicles now they finally do something.


Hmm.
We must've been playing 5e wrong then. Because our tables saw plenty of those "useless" vehicles successfully played. And not necessarily in spam quantities.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/13 11:55:58


Post by: A.T.


 aphyon wrote:
We solved that problem by simply putting the snap fire mechanic into our 5th editions games so vehicles could at least contribute something while stunned/shaken. Not all the best rules were in one edition sadly and some great rules were tossed out for what reason the emperor only knows. that's the reason why our groups and Mezmorki's prohammer does a good job fixing that very problem.
It depends what you are going for and what you are trying to fix. Snapfire adds a lot of rolling to the game and makes gamestates fuzzier (which is to say you no longer can stop shooting at a vehicle know it is out of the next phase, or stop moving a model knowing your opponent can't move and shoot to reach it).

The counterpoint to prohammer is simplehammer - stripping down the rules, or in this example rewarding beating on a vehicle (i.e. +1 damage against an immobile target, firers choice of immobilized/weapon destroyed, etc) to reduce the impact of shaken by reducing the value of shaking a vehicle then moving onto the next target.

Of course trading speed and clarity for range of options and outcomes is a matter of personal taste, and as GW demonstrates it's easy to go too far one way or the other.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/13 12:25:35


Post by: G00fySmiley


on the OP I somewhat agree in that 5th was one of the better editions of 40k, but I honestly think 8th edition with indexes was one of the best times for 40k. things were not perfectly balanced, but they were pretty good compared to most editions and much more balanced than our current mess.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/13 12:25:52


Post by: Blackie


A.T. wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
Vehicles that weren't AV13 or 14 were actually useless since ANY result on the damage table was dreadful. Light and medium armored vehicles are much tougher and fun to play now.
Many of the top-tier lists in 5th were built around AV10-12 vehicles with little or no special protection. Even the least of the factions (radical daemonhunters) could run a potent parking lot.

The 5e damage chart was too reserved and the 4e chart too brutal for the higher costs ... ror transports at least, 5e vehicles spent a lot of time shaken and stunned.


Potent parking lot = Spam. Even orks could spam 8-10 trukks and be very powerful, I refuse to consider "fun to play" this kind of lists. Shaken or stunned = useless. CC vehicles like melee dreads with an immobilized result also useless. Tanks with a single weapon, like razorbacks without conversions, useless with a weapon destroyed or 50% to be useless if they had 2 weapons. Open topped vehicles instant killed on 4+ for a single penetrating hit or even on 3+ against AP1.

My poor trukks vs lascannons: autoglance, pen on 2+. On 4+ instant killed. Now they can soak 3+ hits that bypass saves before getting wrecked. Even BWs had high chances to be instant killed due to AV12 on the sides and AV10 in the back.

I used to wreck AM battle tanks with AV10 in the back with crappy choppa guys, or with just with the lone dude wielding a power klaw, now they can soak an insane amount of hits from choppas and even power klaws instead.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 aphyon wrote:

It really depends on what type of game you want. AV facing and destroyable weapons etc. are more of a sim/wargame we can identify from the real world. the wound system is an abstract game mechanic for more game and less simulation.


Exactly, I'm not discussing game mechanics being better or worse. That's totally subjective.

I'm only disagreeing with those who believe vehicles were more powerful in older editions.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/13 13:59:15


Post by: A.T.


 Blackie wrote:
My poor trukks vs lascannons: autoglance, pen on 2+. On 4+ instant killed.
In practice that translated to a roughly 28% chance of wrecking an unarmoured, open topped vehicle with no obscurement with a shot from a dedicated anti-tank weapon (assuming marine 3+ to hit rather than guard 4+ to hit).

At the start of 5th that's 230 points of minimum size devastators and one of your three heavy support slots for a statistical wrecked/destroyed result on one 35 point trukk out of cover.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/13 14:10:50


Post by: H.B.M.C.


You mean your flimsy AV10 vehicles died to dedicated anti-tank weapons?

Inconceivable!!!



The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/13 14:27:08


Post by: ccs


A.T. wrote:

The counterpoint to prohammer is simplehammer - stripping down the rules,


AKA: 8th/9th edition


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/13 14:39:56


Post by: Nurglitch


Did 8th/9th strip down the rules? Special army stuff aside, it seems like it added more to the core rules. 9th added the Core rule!


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/13 14:45:52


Post by: A.T.


ccs wrote:
A.T. wrote:

The counterpoint to prohammer is simplehammer - stripping down the rules,


AKA: 8th/9th edition
The opposite of 8th/9th edition - aka bucket of dice hammer, deck of cards, character traits, faction traits, unit traits, wargear traits, overlapping auras, and a pool of points to charge up your ultimate combo attack-hammer


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/13 14:55:04


Post by: Karol


 Nurglitch wrote:
Did 8th/9th strip down the rules? Special army stuff aside, it seems like it added more to the core rules. 9th added the Core rule!


Depends on the army. I have seen prior books for my faction and I would say that we lost units, gear options, special rules and in 8th got reduced to an index army state till the PA book came out at the tail end of 8th.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/13 15:07:48


Post by: Nurglitch


I think we're talking about the game using the definite army, rather than 'your' army.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/13 15:19:00


Post by: Karol


Well DE, from what I have been told, lost all their special characters, same with Imperial Guard. So the your is broader then just my army. I just know the most about my factions, I don't go around looking for pre 8th ed non GK books.



The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/13 17:20:30


Post by: Nurglitch


You know, I think I enjoyed 8th the most when (a) everyone was playing the index, and (b) nobody I was playing with used knights or similar super-heavies.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/13 17:46:54


Post by: PenitentJake


 Nurglitch wrote:
You know, I think I enjoyed 8th the most when (a) everyone was playing the index, and (b) nobody I was playing with used knights or similar super-heavies.


Different strokes for different folks.

I found indexes functional, but flavourless and boring as $%&^.

I love my bespoke strats, relics, WL traits and subfaction rules and find the game empty and pointless without them. Then again, I don't actually identify as a table-top wargamer, which is probably the difference- most TT wargames bore me. 40k is the only one that's ever held my interest longer than 2 years.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/13 17:48:36


Post by: Nurglitch


PenitentJake wrote:
 Nurglitch wrote:
You know, I think I enjoyed 8th the most when (a) everyone was playing the index, and (b) nobody I was playing with used knights or similar super-heavies.


Different strokes for different folks.

I found indexes functional, but flavourless and boring as $%&^.

I love my bespoke strats, relics, WL traits and subfaction rules and find the game empty and pointless without them. Then again, I don't actually identify as a table-top wargamer, which is probably the difference- most TT wargames bore me. 40k is the only one that's ever held my interest longer than 2 years.

Congratulations?


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/13 20:23:58


Post by: Blackie


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You mean your flimsy AV10 vehicles died to dedicated anti-tank weapons?

Inconceivable!!!



Losing 5+ in a single turn truly is. Which made them useless unless spamming tons of them, and I really hate spamming units. They died to anything that was at least S5, not necessarily meltas or lascannons.

Since 8th I can finally enjoy my trukks, buggies, dreads and BWs in all the combinations I want and I'm very happy with that. Rhinos and razorbacks also. And I don't think LRs are actually that much easier to wreck like they were before either. They need at least 3-4 melta hits on average that goes through saves to blow them up, in 5th a single hit had 50% odds to instant kill it. Against many anti tank weapons still have a 5+ or even a 4+ save, while in 5th it was hard to put those tanks in cover, of course they had no save if they weren't.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/13 20:44:36


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Nurglitch wrote:
Did 8th/9th strip down the rules? Special army stuff aside, it seems like it added more to the core rules. 9th added the Core rule!


8th/9th reorganized the rules on a broad scale to move content from the core rules into the army rules to make the game look simpler without actually simplifying anything.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/14 02:32:34


Post by: Insectum7


 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Nurglitch wrote:
Did 8th/9th strip down the rules? Special army stuff aside, it seems like it added more to the core rules. 9th added the Core rule!


8th/9th reorganized the rules on a broad scale to move content from the core rules into the army rules to make the game look simpler without actually simplifying anything.
Possibly also to be able to release "Free Core Rules!" and stick a bunch of "depth" into the codexes to in order to incentivise purchase.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/14 09:15:32


Post by: Sim-Life


PenitentJake wrote:
 Nurglitch wrote:
You know, I think I enjoyed 8th the most when (a) everyone was playing the index, and (b) nobody I was playing with used knights or similar super-heavies.


Different strokes for different folks.

I found indexes functional, but flavourless and boring as $%&^.

I love my bespoke strats, relics, WL traits and subfaction rules and find the game empty and pointless without them. Then again, I don't actually identify as a table-top wargamer, which is probably the difference- most TT wargames bore me. 40k is the only one that's ever held my interest longer than 2 years.


you wat m8?
It's a hobby, not an identity.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/14 09:23:31


Post by: Karol


Plus if someone is not invested or interested in table top gaming, then their arguments for or against anything related to the activity, lose a lot of it power. It is like someone not being much interested in painting saying a specific technique or paint existing makes painting better or worse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Sim-Life wrote:


you wat m8?
It's a hobby, not an identity.

So is being a fan of Lazio, but you are not going to tell me it isn't an identity at the same time.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/14 12:46:46


Post by: Sim-Life


Karol wrote:
Plus if someone is not invested or interested in table top gaming, then their arguments for or against anything related to the activity, lose a lot of it power. It is like someone not being much interested in painting saying a specific technique or paint existing makes painting better or worse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Sim-Life wrote:


you wat m8?
It's a hobby, not an identity.

So is being a fan of Lazio.


I don't know what that is.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/14 13:26:36


Post by: kirotheavenger


Since it's Karol, probably some Eastern European sports team.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
From what I've seen, I feel like DUST handles vehicles very well.

I wasn't a huge fan of prior edition's handling of it. It was too swingy. Not helped by the distribution of AT in 40k.

In 40k a dedicated AT unit like a Predator Annihilator or a Devastator squad use the same weapons (the lascannon) as another unit which is only meant to have token AT ability, like a Tactical squad. They just use more of them.
Which makes it really hard to have interesting AT mechanics that enable one-shot one-kill because it just results in everyone fishing for 6s with increasing numbers of dice.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/14 13:50:48


Post by: a_typical_hero


You guys never heard of Lazio Rom? Football club?


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/14 15:38:33


Post by: Sim-Life


a_typical_hero wrote:
You guys never heard of Lazio Rom? Football club?


Should I have? Do they win sportsball competitions a lot?


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/14 15:43:09


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Yeah, outright admitting you don't really enjoy the hobby of tabletop wargaming weakens any argument someone has about tabletop wargaming...

...sorry, Jake. I think you are a tabletop wargamer


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/14 16:13:53


Post by: ccs


 Sim-Life wrote:
Karol wrote:
Plus if someone is not invested or interested in table top gaming, then their arguments for or against anything related to the activity, lose a lot of it power. It is like someone not being much interested in painting saying a specific technique or paint existing makes painting better or worse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Sim-Life wrote:


you wat m8?
It's a hobby, not an identity.

So is being a fan of Lazio.


I don't know what that is.


Italian football team.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Sim-Life wrote:
a_typical_hero wrote:
You guys never heard of Lazio Rom? Football club?


Should I have? Do they win sportsball competitions a lot?


Yeah.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/14 16:26:39


Post by: Karol


Their brawls with juve groups and those of ASP Roma are legendary, we watch them a lot. Specially the end 90s stuff. Not that the new stuff is bad. So it is very easy to be a fan and for it make part of your identity . There are parts here, where you can't wear specific colours of stuff, or you will get beaten up as supporter of enemy team. And no one will ask if you are one for real or you are just some guy that come to Cracow from UK, thinking white and green combination is a safe thing to wear.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/14 16:34:50


Post by: Vankraken


 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Nurglitch wrote:
Did 8th/9th strip down the rules? Special army stuff aside, it seems like it added more to the core rules. 9th added the Core rule!


8th/9th reorganized the rules on a broad scale to move content from the core rules into the army rules to make the game look simpler without actually simplifying anything.


Personally I think the shift from rules being in the BRB and moving into the codexes has resulted in the much more rapid issue of rules bloat despite the complexity of the game being overly simplified.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/14 17:51:41


Post by: RoterBaronH


I disagree, I don't think that the editions are getting worse. If that was the case GW wouldn't be as successfull as it is now. All editions have their ups and downs. 3rd, 4th, 5th included. Many just forget the bad stuff and remember the good and nostalgic things.

I believe what a lot of you are feeling (me included) is edition fatigue. You start enjoying an edition, you like the mechanics aaaand a new edition drops. So it starts again, you learn the game, there are mechanics you like, you start enjoying yourself aaaaand a new edition drops.

I think GW should slowly start to rethink the approach they take for an edition.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/14 17:53:56


Post by: PenitentJake


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah, outright admitting you don't really enjoy the hobby of tabletop wargaming weakens any argument someone has about tabletop wargaming...

...sorry, Jake. I think you are a tabletop wargamer


Maybe.

But I see A LOT of posts on Dakka that kind of expanded and changed the way I categorize and think about games.

There was a fantastic thread on here, for example, that talked about simulation vs. game that really clarified a few details for me about what I want from a game- and this dichotomy still makes its way into other threads too. So with that in mind, allow me to clarify.

First caveat: If it can happen in the real world, I'm not interested- this applies to almost every type of game I play. I need strong sci-fi, fantasy or supernatural elements to be present in order to truly enjoy a game.

Second Caveat: I'll try any game once if friends want to play it- even overriding caveat #1.

My favourite "Type" of game is the pen and paper RPG, played campaign style. Don't get me wrong, I'll do one off sessions- my wife and I actually met at a games convention. Best war story ever: two day session of Live Action Shadowrun with 50 players at Gencon Circa 2000ish. Day one, I took first place as voted by the players; day two, she took first. Why do I love these games? They are escapist; they are immersive; they allow me to plan and create story arcs over time, and the allow me to see and express the growth of my character(s). If you offered to play any type of game, anywhere, anytime, I'm always going oldschool pen and paper RPG. I've played HUNDREDS of different RPGS in my lifetime, and I will often be the person in the group who finds and suggests new ones to play... Not always, but often.

I also really enjoy collectible card games. Something about deck building really intrigues me, and once I start playing, I'll be the last person still up for another game- I've burned hundreds of sleepless weekends in macho-nerd pissing contests to play one more game. And I've played scores of different CCGS in my lifetime. I don't seek them out these days- the metas move too fast, and they don't have the same kinds of intrinsic story rewards as RPGs- they generally don't confer the same types of character growth, narrative progression and immersion... Though there are some variations of regular play for some games that try hard to approach this.

Then there's table top miniature games. I've played a fair number- Legions of Steel, Inferno, Full Thrust, Fairy Meat, Hero Clicks, Deadlands, Mutant Chronicles, Battletech.., probably a handful of others. But I've played just about every 40k spin-off game ever. They only games that ever had me hooked enough to invest heavily are 40k, Necromunda and BSF. As you can see, far fewer games of this category under my belt, and far less interest in pursuing new systems. Again, if a friend wants to play and can supply the models, I'll try anything- even an ultra realistic WWII simulation game. But don't expect me to go looking for it, or consider it as an alternative to the GW games that I currently play and actually like.

Why do I like GW games?

Well, they certainly have the escapist sci-fi/ fantasy themes I'm looking for, and they can be immersive. Even before Crusade, there was always enough in 40k for me to see the role playing game inside the miniatures game. Mutant Chronicles, Deadlands and Battletech all have parallel RPGs, as did 40k... though that didn't come until later in the game's development. Crusade, of course, knocks all of my campaign/ story/ growth fixes that I get from RPGs, and list building has a lot in common with deck building in a game with as many factions and models as 40k has. And strats don't bother me because I like CCGs.

So I love 40k- I loved 2nd, 3rd, 8th and 9th. I liked RT, 4th and 5th enough to play them often and invest in them. If my two favourite armies (SoB and GSC) had received any respect in 6th/7th I may have liked those versions enough too. And yeah, I know GSC did actually appear at the tag end of 7th, but the announcement of 8th came so fast after the GSC dex that I just decided to wait. The GSC dex is the only 7th ed book I ever bought.

So it isn't so much that I'm not a table-top gamer; it's a case of preferring pen and paper RPGs and CCGs to all tabletop miniature games that aren't connected to 40k in some way shape or form.

Does this limit my ability to discuss and compare rule sets for table-top mini-games? Sure it does- absolutely.

But there are others who comment extensively here who have never played Rogue Trader... Or any edition prior to 5th, or whatever. Am I more or less qualified to get in the ring with them? Maybe.

I post these kinds of things to acknowledge the biases that make my points of view so radically different from those of the "Average Dakkanaut" (and to be fair, such a creature, if it exists at all, is a vast generalization, so...). From what I can see, this Average Dakkanaut plays 2k matched almost exclusively in 40k and has a fairly common knowledge of other table top miniature games that include realistic simulations of contemporary or historical warfare. I share exactly none of those characteristics.

My secondary motive for citing these declarations is to remind Dakkanauts about the diversity of 40k's audience, because it seems to me that some posters mistake the homogeneity of those who post on Dakka for homogeneity of the player base in general.

Compared to MOST of you, I am not a tabletop wargamer- I'm a regular roleplayer and an occasional CCG player who happens to like 40k and its suite of associated specialist games because they appeal deeply enough to my imagination, my story-telling and building instincts and my desire for immersion in a way that no other miniature game on the market can.

Compared to the average dude off the street, or in Karol's sports clubs, yeah sure- definitely a tabletop gamer.




The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/14 18:25:00


Post by: RoterBaronH


PenitentJake wrote:


Compared to MOST of you, I am not a tabletop wargamer- I'm a regular roleplayer and an occasional CCG player who happens to like 40k and its suite of associated specialist games because they appeal deeply enough to my imagination, my story-telling and building instincts and my desire for immersion in a way that no other miniature game on the market can.



Are you drunk? What kind of loops are you jumping through to reach this conclusion? You don't need to play every single tabletop game to be a tabletop wargamer. 1 is enough.

And if you enjoy 40k the tabletop enough to the point of going in a 40k fan Forum to post about it, I'm sorry you're a Tabeltop wargamer. Even more so than many of the avarage 40k player.

It also has nothing to do with this thread.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/14 21:16:56


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Spoiler:
PenitentJake wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah, outright admitting you don't really enjoy the hobby of tabletop wargaming weakens any argument someone has about tabletop wargaming...

...sorry, Jake. I think you are a tabletop wargamer


Maybe.

But I see A LOT of posts on Dakka that kind of expanded and changed the way I categorize and think about games.

There was a fantastic thread on here, for example, that talked about simulation vs. game that really clarified a few details for me about what I want from a game- and this dichotomy still makes its way into other threads too. So with that in mind, allow me to clarify.

First caveat: If it can happen in the real world, I'm not interested- this applies to almost every type of game I play. I need strong sci-fi, fantasy or supernatural elements to be present in order to truly enjoy a game.

Second Caveat: I'll try any game once if friends want to play it- even overriding caveat #1.

My favourite "Type" of game is the pen and paper RPG, played campaign style. Don't get me wrong, I'll do one off sessions- my wife and I actually met at a games convention. Best war story ever: two day session of Live Action Shadowrun with 50 players at Gencon Circa 2000ish. Day one, I took first place as voted by the players; day two, she took first. Why do I love these games? They are escapist; they are immersive; they allow me to plan and create story arcs over time, and the allow me to see and express the growth of my character(s). If you offered to play any type of game, anywhere, anytime, I'm always going oldschool pen and paper RPG. I've played HUNDREDS of different RPGS in my lifetime, and I will often be the person in the group who finds and suggests new ones to play... Not always, but often.

I also really enjoy collectible card games. Something about deck building really intrigues me, and once I start playing, I'll be the last person still up for another game- I've burned hundreds of sleepless weekends in macho-nerd pissing contests to play one more game. And I've played scores of different CCGS in my lifetime. I don't seek them out these days- the metas move too fast, and they don't have the same kinds of intrinsic story rewards as RPGs- they generally don't confer the same types of character growth, narrative progression and immersion... Though there are some variations of regular play for some games that try hard to approach this.

Then there's table top miniature games. I've played a fair number- Legions of Steel, Inferno, Full Thrust, Fairy Meat, Hero Clicks, Deadlands, Mutant Chronicles, Battletech.., probably a handful of others. But I've played just about every 40k spin-off game ever. They only games that ever had me hooked enough to invest heavily are 40k, Necromunda and BSF. As you can see, far fewer games of this category under my belt, and far less interest in pursuing new systems. Again, if a friend wants to play and can supply the models, I'll try anything- even an ultra realistic WWII simulation game. But don't expect me to go looking for it, or consider it as an alternative to the GW games that I currently play and actually like.

Why do I like GW games?

Well, they certainly have the escapist sci-fi/ fantasy themes I'm looking for, and they can be immersive. Even before Crusade, there was always enough in 40k for me to see the role playing game inside the miniatures game. Mutant Chronicles, Deadlands and Battletech all have parallel RPGs, as did 40k... though that didn't come until later in the game's development. Crusade, of course, knocks all of my campaign/ story/ growth fixes that I get from RPGs, and list building has a lot in common with deck building in a game with as many factions and models as 40k has. And strats don't bother me because I like CCGs.

So I love 40k- I loved 2nd, 3rd, 8th and 9th. I liked RT, 4th and 5th enough to play them often and invest in them. If my two favourite armies (SoB and GSC) had received any respect in 6th/7th I may have liked those versions enough too. And yeah, I know GSC did actually appear at the tag end of 7th, but the announcement of 8th came so fast after the GSC dex that I just decided to wait. The GSC dex is the only 7th ed book I ever bought.

So it isn't so much that I'm not a table-top gamer; it's a case of preferring pen and paper RPGs and CCGs to all tabletop miniature games that aren't connected to 40k in some way shape or form.

Does this limit my ability to discuss and compare rule sets for table-top mini-games? Sure it does- absolutely.

But there are others who comment extensively here who have never played Rogue Trader... Or any edition prior to 5th, or whatever. Am I more or less qualified to get in the ring with them? Maybe.

I post these kinds of things to acknowledge the biases that make my points of view so radically different from those of the "Average Dakkanaut" (and to be fair, such a creature, if it exists at all, is a vast generalization, so...). From what I can see, this Average Dakkanaut plays 2k matched almost exclusively in 40k and has a fairly common knowledge of other table top miniature games that include realistic simulations of contemporary or historical warfare. I share exactly none of those characteristics.

My secondary motive for citing these declarations is to remind Dakkanauts about the diversity of 40k's audience, because it seems to me that some posters mistake the homogeneity of those who post on Dakka for homogeneity of the player base in general.

Compared to MOST of you, I am not a tabletop wargamer- I'm a regular roleplayer and an occasional CCG player who happens to like 40k and its suite of associated specialist games because they appeal deeply enough to my imagination, my story-telling and building instincts and my desire for immersion in a way that no other miniature game on the market can.

Compared to the average dude off the street, or in Karol's sports clubs, yeah sure- definitely a tabletop gamer.

Spoilering your quote, Jake, for brevity.

I'll say we're the same.

I love RPGs; in fact, I vastly prefer RPGs to competitive tabletop games or pickup games. I also like having supernatural / weird elements - some of my favorite franchises are the Tolkien Legendarium, the Yellow Mythos, Elder Scrolls, and (yes) Warhammer 40k.

I also don't care for realism. After all, I do play Slaanesh Daemons... HOWEVER, I will caveat that statement with "I care about immersion".

What you call "simulationist" I call "immersive". When a tank shell acts like a tank shell should (according to that universe's lore) then I am more immersed than if it just does something random. If a universe (like 40k) is deep and well-established, then it has certain "rules" and oftentimes these rules overlap with reality's laws of physics. Where they don't, heck, that's fine, even encouraged. I think the warp and daemons are cool, I think psykers are terrifying, and I think the Adeptus Mechanicus is pretty awesome as an organization (despite being pretty unbelievable "realistically"). What I want from games is to feel immersed - to feel like I am playing "what would really happen" even if it's in the fantastical proposed reality rather than our own.

And I think that feeling of immersion is all you want too - after all, if we're both storytellers, then we want a consistent and comprehensible backdrop in which to tell our stories. That's why I'm shocked we disagree so much; I personally think 9th edition 40k is one of the least immersive editions I've played - with the arguable exception of 8th (which is fundamentally the same design paradigm).

As for historicals, I like those because they offer a fun way to tell stories in the milieu of the times - whether it be Team Yankee's 1980s Cold-War-Gone-Hot or Chain of Command's 1939-1945 "what if I was a platoon commander" story.*

So I really don't think you're that different from the rest of us; certainly not from me. I don't like Deckbuilding Games is basically the only difference, and for me it was because I could never get immersed and there didn't seem to be a coherent way to keep a story going between games.


*it's worth mentioning that Chain of Command has an entire army list for Nazi zombies with "Herr Doktor" as the leader and werewolf support assets, so it's not like there's a shortage of the supernatural in other games if you go digging.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/14 22:14:04


Post by: PenitentJake


@Unit- You're right on much of that for sure. We do define immersion differently- for me it basically means the degree of engagement I get from a game, and it's related to things like the number of factions in the range and the distinctions between their factions, rather than the mechanics functioning in any particular way.

I've learned so many differing systems of mechanics in so many different types of games that I can usually get onboard with any mechanics required to tell the stories, but there has to be a huge breadth of stories available to be told in order for me to classify the game to be worthy of investment.

It's also worth noting that while the game tends to take place mostly in the imagination anyway, I really like it when differences which exist in the background have mechanical representation on the table. There are quite a few people who either don't need that, or outright dislike it for a whole host of reasons... Many of which are totally legitimate. It IS harder to balance. It IS sometimes differences of minor cosmetics- a plus here instead of there. It DOES make it harder to remember the details of every army. And yet, it's important to me- it's my favourite thing about the 8th and 9th. I'm planning to play 25 PL Crusades for all six Orders of the SOB; only 2 of the six are likely to make it beyond 50 PL, but there will be story paths that lead to different combinations of those Crusades into multi-detachment, multi-order forces united under suitably legendary heroes. For me, this is just more interesting when each of the many different moving parts plays mechanically differently from each other, and I find bespoke subfaction abilities, WL Traits, strats and relics offer the degree of distinctiveness I'm looking for... and while they lead to all those legitimate complaints I listed above, I couldn't get that with other games or other versions of this game.

I could make do, of course: that's what I did for all the previous versions of the game.

As for Chain of Command and the idea of alternate futures: that does make me reconsider some historical games. One of the things I loved about Deadlands (RPG) and it's table top equivalent (Rail Barons).


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/14 23:16:33


Post by: Unit1126PLL


I like there to be differences in the background between factions too, but when I can't visualize how my troops are acting on the table, I just don't care.

Mechanically significant differences, in my mind, come *after* the rules make sense.

Like, if the rule system answer for "why didn't the tank cannonade suppress the enemy" is "*shrug* what is suppression?" Then how the hell am I going to tell a story that makes sense? When certain fundamental truths about the setting are just ignored in the rules (and by extension, ignored when the game is played)?


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/15 01:43:52


Post by: Mezmorki


Author of ProHammer here.

Jumping in way late, but obviously my bias is towards the 3rd - 5th era.

The newer edition rules (8th/9th) make me excited - then I start wading through the new codexes and I have a headache 10 minutes later. It isn't 40K. Not the one in my mind anyway.

Hence making ProHammer.

ProHammer is, admittedly a concession. Part of the idea is to let anyone use any codexes from 3rd - 7th, but in the games we've played we've often overcome the supposed power creep.

We've had 3rd Ed Orks beat 7th edition Tau, holding their own against the insane late stage fire power. We've had 5th Ed grey knigit's wipe the floor of a 7th Ed eldar scat bike list. We've had 3rd Ed Emperors Children fighting the cult mechanicus.

Maybe this is a testament to the rule-smithing in ProHammer, or we've been lucky. But I've adopted a rule philosophy of "hit hard, live hard". Which is to say that letting people unleash their firepower and have lots of options for how to attack is FUN. But having the survivorship of units such that after getting hit hard, the unit comes out mostly intact makes everything feel more heroic. More units are kept on the board and end up having some options for how they get used.

TLDR, It's fun blasting away at something for it miraculously live, and then fire back at you your and your stuff lives. And you're all on the edge of your seat and throwing your hands up in the air at the hilarity of all. But somewhere in there still you have tough choices to make.

The game tries to hard now and takes itself too seriously. It tries to be clever and trips on the way through the the door over its own misplaced complexity. The lore is too serious and attacks too serious competitive minded approaches to design and playing that just misses the point of the what the lore was trying to be and tone for gameplay it was trying to set.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/15 09:05:40


Post by: Blackie


Karol wrote:

So is being a fan of Lazio, but you are not going to tell me it isn't an identity at the same time.


You clearly have no idea about what you're saying.

I'm a Lazio fan, and it doesn't have anything to do with my identity. It's just the oldest football club of my birth city, and I'm a supporter for that reason. Like 99,9% of the other Lazio fans. You described hooligans, which support their football team in a sick way, and which are a really tiny minority. There's a stereotype about Lazio fans because of a few incidents about political involved groups of hooligans, but we're talking about a few hundreds out of several millions of supporters. But that's what it is, just a stereotype. Being a supporter has nothing to do with people's identities.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/15 09:17:10


Post by: Karol


You don't like a Irriducibili. I met some of them last year durning the independance march we hold each year, and they were much different people. To them being a fan was their every day of, and they were willing to do everything to prove it. Some of the older guys showed us shorts and told stories about how they fought the other clubs. I know a not so few ultras here, and if Lazio fans are anything like the ones we have, then the club does make up a huge chunk or their identity and life.
Very cool people too, I go some nice pins from them too and copy of a water bottle from 1916, it is part wooden and looks great even when it is just a reconstruction.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/15 09:17:31


Post by: Blackie


RoterBaronH wrote:
I disagree, I don't think that the editions are getting worse. If that was the case GW wouldn't be as successfull as it is now. All editions have their ups and downs. 3rd, 4th, 5th included. Many just forget the bad stuff and remember the good and nostalgic things.

I believe what a lot of you are feeling (me included) is edition fatigue. You start enjoying an edition, you like the mechanics aaaand a new edition drops. So it starts again, you learn the game, there are mechanics you like, you start enjoying yourself aaaaand a new edition drops.

I think GW should slowly start to rethink the approach they take for an edition.


I agree, editions are way to short now and I despise this rush to uprade codexes every 1.5 years, or less, considering supplements and expansions. A lot of players will disagree on that as they only consider the competitive part of the game, and many won't buy new stuff if there isn't a shiny new codex about the be released, but I'd like to stick with a codex for 4-5 years at least, with no supplements/expansions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote:
You don't like a Irriducibili. I met some of them last year durning the independance march we hold each year, and they were much different people. To them being a fan was their every day of, and they were willing to do everything to prove it. Some of the older guys showed us shorts and told stories about how they fought the other clubs. I know a not so few ultras here, and if Lazio fans are anything like the ones we have, then the club does make up a huge chunk or their identity and life.
Very cool people too, I go some nice pins from them too and copy of a water bottle from 1916, it is part wooden and looks great even when it is just a reconstruction.


Yes, they don't represent the typical supporter. They're just your average far right dudes, every country have those scums and some of them have ties with organized crime. The football club they claim they supporter can't stand them and always critizes them. And viceversa.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/20 17:10:36


Post by: Wolflord Patrick


 Mezmorki wrote:
Author of ProHammer here.

Jumping in way late, but obviously my bias is towards the 3rd - 5th era.

The newer edition rules (8th/9th) make me excited - then I start wading through the new codexes and I have a headache 10 minutes later. It isn't 40K. Not the one in my mind anyway.

Hence making ProHammer.

ProHammer is, admittedly a concession. Part of the idea is to let anyone use any codexes from 3rd - 7th, but in the games we've played we've often overcome the supposed power creep.

We've had 3rd Ed Orks beat 7th edition Tau, holding their own against the insane late stage fire power. We've had 5th Ed grey knigit's wipe the floor of a 7th Ed eldar scat bike list. We've had 3rd Ed Emperors Children fighting the cult mechanicus.

Maybe this is a testament to the rule-smithing in ProHammer, or we've been lucky. But I've adopted a rule philosophy of "hit hard, live hard". Which is to say that letting people unleash their firepower and have lots of options for how to attack is FUN. But having the survivorship of units such that after getting hit hard, the unit comes out mostly intact makes everything feel more heroic. More units are kept on the board and end up having some options for how they get used.

TLDR, It's fun blasting away at something for it miraculously live, and then fire back at you your and your stuff lives. And you're all on the edge of your seat and throwing your hands up in the air at the hilarity of all. But somewhere in there still you have tough choices to make.

The game tries to hard now and takes itself too seriously. It tries to be clever and trips on the way through the the door over its own misplaced complexity. The lore is too serious and attacks too serious competitive minded approaches to design and playing that just misses the point of the what the lore was trying to be and tone for gameplay it was trying to set.


That actually sounds pretty cool. However, as I have a hard enough time finding players to play any edition other than the current one I doubt I'll get a chance to play it.

I think the biggest part of my frustration is my lost confidence in GW's ability to write a game that doesn't feel so drastically different than the one I've enjoyed the most. I struggle to even watch battle reports on YouTube of newer edition games. I recently re-read the 3rd edition 40k rules and realized that while not perfect, (The part where you can shoot a unit that completes a sweeping advance after it's already made contact with the new unit feels wonky today.) it really is easy to follow and the scenarios are simple and quick to grasp.

In a recent conversation I had with someone who really enjoys 9th edition, they stated that the part they liked most is that they can still be practically tabled and still win the game if they've achieved the most objective points. To me that mechanic feels like a lazy way to avoid balancing the codex books.



The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/08/20 18:59:51


Post by: Daedalus81


 Wolflord Patrick wrote:

In a recent conversation I had with someone who really enjoys 9th edition, they stated that the part they liked most is that they can still be practically tabled and still win the game if they've achieved the most objective points. To me that mechanic feels like a lazy way to avoid balancing the codex books.



Tabling doesn't happen as often as people claim and the tabling we get in 9th is different compared to prior editions. Often what happens is by turns 4 and 5 both sides are down to very limited units. Through good decisions you can net yourself a win. Those decisions extend to early game plays that may have been gambles resulting in bigger losses, but a better position later on.

It isn't a balance thing as much as it is working within an IGOUGO system.


The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition @ 2021/12/20 01:10:23


Post by: Catulle


Since this was linked recently... First played in Rogue Trader. Made a deodorant stick grav tank, abused my Slugzoid. Discovered Eldar when their main weapon was a crossbow.

It was a fun, crazy mess of a game.

Second was worse with the vehicle targeting templates and the subsequent disastrous AP rules soured me, playing along grudgingly till 7th (6th?) really amped up the scale from where my budget could manage it - warmachine was far more bang for my buck.

Shifts in currency probably made me return as WMH climbed in price locally and I did always love working with GW plastic... I found the massively interchangeable dark Eldar line and have been stuck there ever since.