Switch Theme:

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

Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/11 13:29:36


Post by: jeff white


Listening to a favorite long-running and quite popular hobby podcast yesterday, I was struck by how negative one of the hosts was specifically about 9th edition 40K. This, coupled with recent entries from (many relatively influential) others in other media (e.g. as discussed in this thread https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/800753.page), has me wondering: Has 40K peaked? Which way forward for this system?
Some possible questions include:
  • Should 40K 'evolve' into something radically different from its original design, perhaps incorporating unit-level I-go-you-go mechanics using activation points or other means for alternating actions instead of army-level turns?

  • Should GW double-down on command points (something about which the hosts of the aforementioned podcast were especially wary) or dispense with them in favor of something else or nothing like them at all?

  • What about the cards, the ways that units are costed, the constant updates requiring new book purchases and now subscription services and so on - is there a way forward that can systematically improve the game and broader yet the hobby in general?

  • Or, should 40K return to its roots? RT? 2nd ed? 3rd? Vehicle facings and blast templates and greater "realism" in the sense of a detachment-level fantasy-sci-fi battlefield simulation? What about standard weapon profiles and abilities available to all or many races, e.g. orks using bolt guns and eldar with parrying powerswords? Should these be brought back?

  • Or, is there a way for GW to offer layers of complexity, with basic rules on the model of 8th's stripped-down rules or one-page 40K, and with different layers of rules offered that can be added on as players wish, adding realism and detail at the cost of time and involvement, with stripped-down rules perhaps better suited to larger games with high-point value forces that play relatively quickly, and with increasingly complex rules perhaps best suited to smaller games with fewer units all the way down to what might effectively be a model-based squad-level role playing game, all within the covers of a 40K set of rulebooks? Could such a consistent system be possible? Would this represent progress?


  • Ultmately, the feeling that I got from listening to those hosts of that podcast was that 40K had peaked, and that some rather radical revisions might be necessary in order for these longstanding hobbyists to become interested in engaging with the system on a regular basis, again.

    Which way, 40K? Forward? Back? Wondering what any and all have to say about this...





    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/11 13:35:36


    Post by: Gregor Samsa


    Good questions Jeff.

    I think 40k design is a total mess and not really salvageable without a fundamental rewrite of the entire rules.

    For me personally I wish GW would bring back epic40k as the "lethality" of 40k is best represented using a smaller miniature scale to demonstrate the fact that 40k games essentially mimic the scale of battletech (infantry to sub-orbital airspace) on a tiny board using 28mm models. That just flat out doesn't work.

    When it comes to the print media. To repeat myself from another thread. I am frankly embarrassed to own printed GW materials. The rushed nature and poor editing of their printed product makes me feel ashamed to ever have purchased it. I cannot say the same, at all, about Osprey's or Warlord Games printed product.

    The one ray of sunshine is that we are really enjoying the new kill team! The compendium fiasco is an unfortunate wart (see above regarding trash print media). But the core rules are a great interactive system.

    The TLDR for me is: at 28mm 40k doesn't work anymore. And it will not unless it is completely rewritten from the ground up.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/11 13:45:25


    Post by: H.B.M.C.


    Thanks Jeff. Was looking for an excuse to post this recent video that Winters put up:




    Essentially it's a talk about accessibility, and what the changes between 8th and 9th have brought. It's also a talk about how 9th is basically "Tournament Edition", something I've been saying since 9th first came about, and the good and bad sides of such a system.

     jeff white wrote:
    What about the cards, the ways that units are costed, the constant updates requiring new book purchases and now subscription services and so on - is there a way forward that can systematically improve the game and broader yet the hobby in general?
    For my own part, I'm wary that GW are so in love with their "streaming service" that even unit cards are something that will go away. Why spend money producing cards when you can put all that stuff behind a monthly pay wall?



    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/11 13:50:41


    Post by: Gert


    9th is harder to pick up than 8th IMO but I've also just been enjoying it anyway but that is likely more down to the fact that I've just stopped caring about a lot of it. I don't have a strong grasp of list building, army building, tactics, or Strategems so I just use what feels fun or thematic. If I lose a game but my Raider drifted around a corner and tanked a Lokhust Heavy Destroyer shot then zapped it out of existence with a Dark Lance, then I'm happy.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/11 14:57:46


    Post by: jeff white


    H.B.M.C. - that Winters video was on the mark, thanks for that! His ideas 'if he were writing 10th edition' answer to my question above about the layering of complexity to allow for simple accessibility with additional constraints that can be added in as hobbyists grow in sophistication, with their collections, and so on.
    In reply to your concerns about putting everything behind a paywall, yes, I share these concerns as well. I can see where this strategy might make sense for some bean-counter weighing anticipated legal and enforcement costs against potential earnings given widespread adoption of such a business model in the existing and projected player base, but... what looks good in an MBA's spreadsheet might not play out so well irl... I can imagine some viscious backlash. In the context of Winters' account of GW share prices increasing with accessibilty, such a move of content behind a paywall might make sense to investors. I would be surprised if share prices were to fall for such a move. I would anticipate the value of the brand declining, however. Luxury pricing maybe, but an object of ridicule for many by that point I would imagine.

    Gregor, I am perpetually at a loss as to why Epic is not an active line at the original scale, i.e. not remade a la Man o' War into something... different. Maybe there is motivation amongst some at GW, but resistance due to 3d printability, I can only guess. But that was maybe the best GW game that I ever played... I wish that I would have had more time with it when it was around. Regardless, the tie-ins with a 28mm system are obvious, as rules could be written that move from scale to scale, and that might be used for larger games at 28mm scale or the other way around, if someone has all the time in the world... Anyways, yes! Epic was great.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/11 15:39:05


    Post by: PenitentJake


     H.B.M.C. wrote:


    Essentially it's a talk about accessibility, and what the changes between 8th and 9th have brought. It's also a talk about how 9th is basically "Tournament Edition", something I've been saying since 9th first came about, and the good and bad sides of such a system.


    So you're saying Crusade was made for tournament players? Because Crusade didn't exist until 9th, and now that it does, it's all I play.

    People who believe this tripe are people who only play matched. If you want to say "9th's matched play is THE tournament edition," that's another thing entirely, and I wouldn't bother wasting my time arguing it.

    But to pretend that Crusade doesn't exist to advance a personal narrative about the edition as a whole IS a bit of a flawed argument, yes?

     H.B.M.C. wrote:

     jeff white wrote:
    What about the cards, the ways that units are costed, the constant updates requiring new book purchases and now subscription services and so on - is there a way forward that can systematically improve the game and broader yet the hobby in general?
    For my own part, I'm wary that GW are so in love with their "streaming service" that even unit cards are something that will go away. Why spend money producing cards when you can put all that stuff behind a monthly pay wall?


    Look, the subscription services that GW has are: the Hachette model subscription- zero rules locked behind anything, 100% optional; the App- everything available in App also available on paper, so again, 100% optional; and finally, Warhammer+ - pure media, zero rules behind pay walls. I suppose you can lump White Dwarf in with subscription services as well, and again, the vast majority of rules content is once again 100% optional. So I'm not really sure what you're complaining about.

    As for cards, a $1.00 stack of 3x5 index cards, a ball point pen and 30 minutes with the dex I already own will give me all the cards I need, and ONLY the cards I need. Sure, GW's printed cards are convenient if you've got the disposable income. But anyone who thinks they are necessary has some real cognitive issues that should be worked out. Are there people who also believe you can only play 40k with official 40k faction dice at $30.00 a box too? Probably... And they are just as wrong.

    I happen to like 9th. I know that's a minority opinion on Dakka and in certain other corners of the Internet. But every time a thread like this appears, I feel it's important to post once to prevent it from being yet another echo chamber.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/11 15:57:56


    Post by: H.B.M.C.


    PenitentJake wrote:
    So you're saying Crusade was made for tournament players? Because Crusade didn't exist until 9th, and now that it does, it's all I play.

    People who believe this tripe are people who only play matched. If you want to say "9th's matched play is THE tournament edition," that's another thing entirely, and I wouldn't bother wasting my time arguing it.

    But to pretend that Crusade doesn't exist to advance a personal narrative about the edition as a whole IS a bit of a flawed argument, yes?
    This is a very long-winded way of saying "I didn't watch the video!".

    Watch the video!

    PenitentJake wrote:
    Look, the subscription services that GW has are: the Hachette model subscription- zero rules locked behind anything, 100% optional; the App- everything available in App also available on paper, so again, 100% optional; and finally, Warhammer+ - pure media, zero rules behind pay walls. I suppose you can lump White Dwarf in with subscription services as well, and again, the vast majority of rules content is once again 100% optional. So I'm not really sure what you're complaining about.
    I wasn't aware I was complaining???

    I'm expressing a concern that GW has fallen in love with their W+ service and so are going to shift as much there as possible.

    PenitentJake wrote:
    As for cards, a $1.00 stack of 3x5 index cards, a ball point pen and 30 minutes with the dex I already own will give me all the cards I need, and ONLY the cards I need.
    Bully for you, but that's not what I meant and I'm sure you knew that.

    PenitentJake wrote:
    Sure, GW's printed cards are convenient if you've got the disposable income. But anyone who thinks they are necessary has some real cognitive issues that should be worked out. Are there people who also believe you can only play 40k with official 40k faction dice at $30.00 a box too? Probably... And they are just as wrong
    This isn't specifically 40k related, but GW has stopped putting up Warscroll PDFs on the store for everything released since Dominion. This is what I mean when I say that I fear this kind of action will increase/spread.

    PenitentJake wrote:
    I happen to like 9th. I know that's a minority opinion on Dakka and in certain other corners of the Internet. But every time a thread like this appears, I feel it's important to post once to prevent it from being yet another echo chamber.
    I want to know where I said I didn't like 9th in this thread, or why you feel the need to defend it.





    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/11 15:59:22


    Post by: Sgt. Cortez


    Imo, just put alternating activations on 9th edition rules and release proper narrative (asymmetrical or "historical") missions and it's a solid system. The rules are better than they've ever been, and balance is okay. Stop releasing a new edition every three years.
    Yes, alternating activations would probably need a new edition as well, but I'd be fine with that if it that would last for 10 years.
    It's the main aspect why 40K never was a very tactical game, 8/9th CC at least brought some activations in with CC and reactions through some stratagems. We need more of that.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/11 16:46:35


    Post by: Aenar


    9th core rules are ok, nothing incredible but an improvement over 8th ed ones for sure.
    It's the additional rules on top and how they are distributed across tens of books, FAQs and Erratas that make it a complete mess.
    Without a certain russian website it'd be almost impossible for a new player to understand where a certain rule comes from.
    Balance has basically never been worse, probably as a consequence of that.

    Core rules in the 5th-7th period were better imho, more complex but more fun.
    If we had balance updates and FAQs back then, that would've been the peak of 40K for sure. What ruined 7th was a handful of broken rules (invisibility, alliances, ...) and the inherent unbalance of faction books that were never touched again once released.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/11 16:59:20


    Post by: AnomanderRake


    I think GW should try and push more support into side games, and try and broaden their umbrella to cater to more types of people rather than continuing to insist that (whatever the current edition of 40k is) should be all things to all people when it often quite manifestly isn't.

    I think GW is going to continue chugging along at the same old pace throwing random half-thought-out ideas into new editions of 40k and putting out undersupported side games because they're making a tremendous amount of money half-assing their rules.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/11 17:04:44


    Post by: The_Real_Chris


     jeff white wrote:

    Gregor, I am perpetually at a loss as to why Epic is not an active line at the original scale, i.e. not remade a la Man o' War into something... different. Maybe there is motivation amongst some at GW, but resistance due to 3d printability, I can only guess. But that was maybe the best GW game that I ever played... I wish that I would have had more time with it when it was around. Regardless, the tie-ins with a 28mm system are obvious, as rules could be written that move from scale to scale, and that might be used for larger games at 28mm scale or the other way around, if someone has all the time in the world... Anyways, yes! Epic was great.


    At its peak Epic became GWs 2nd biggest selling system. Then 3rd flopped hard. A combination or rules players didn't like and massive increase in expense (previously you could get 20 sprues for £10, in 3rd you got one sprue for £5...) - no doubt driven by wanting a certain price point to have an army, but spoiling those intentions to have massive battles, and the cost of retooling virtually every model - made it unpopular. Prior to this GW had poured in a lot of resource. Multiple new plastic sprues, multipart lead models, etc. The return was a total loss. The lesson GW took away was people preferred the 28mm models.

    Then when GW US tried a soft reboot of BFG they saw overall salves go up, but a decline in 40k sales almost matching the increase in BFG sales. So while turnover was higher, so were costs making profit less.

    This thinking ruled the company until the current management started going back into those 'other' games. Perhaps they thought they could win back profits with new processes, or had realised by creating markets for those other systems then leaving them they had provided a springboard for competitors.

    Now the constraint on Epic is the manpower required for the launch hasn't been there alongside everything else (and that stuff is going fine) and as time marches on the growth of 3d printing amongst the Epic community makes it look like a less and less attractive market.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/11 17:08:37


    Post by: Da Boss


    Isn't 9e incredibly popular? I thought GW were making more money than ever these days. It's not quite to my taste either (I don't like mechanics like command points that much and would prefer alternating activation) but it seems to be "peak 40K" for loads of people.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/11 17:12:06


    Post by: kodos


    has 40k peaked?

    kind of, in a way that GW made promises but not fulfilled them and now see the backlash

    while Warhammer was in a bad shape before GW replaced it with AoS, 40k was on the edge as well at the end of 7th

    what kept the game not only alive but increased the number of players and sales to a point never seen before, was the simple promise that
    "this time, we have learned from the mistakes, and are really trying to achieve something better"

    it worked for 8th, but with 9th similar mistakes are made again while at the same time ignoring the situation for people during the pandemic

    I mean replacing books before a lot of people had a chance to play a single game with those rules was not the best decision, especially with the new stuff being late


    From a Rules point of view, the Core was never that big of a problem, the problem has always been with the Army Books and GW did not learned from this, always replacing the core but never manage to get appropriate army books out
    (hence 8th worked as a lot of people were playing with the Index lists far longer than they should have, some groups not jumping on the Codex version until all factions that were used got one)

    and now GW is back on the road, but with a lot more people playing, there are a lot more people being upset if things go the wrong way
    the loyal community that accepts everything GW is doing, is still there, but they are a minority now


    the current hype was very much build upon the goodwill of the community
    and GW is trying hard to destroy this


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/11 17:15:42


    Post by: jeff white


     AnomanderRake wrote:
    I think GW should try and push more support into side games, and try and broaden their umbrella to cater to more types of people rather than continuing to insist that (whatever the current edition of 40k is) should be all things to all people when it often quite manifestly isn't.

    I think GW is going to continue chugging along at the same old pace throwing random half-thought-out ideas into new editions of 40k and putting out undersupported side games because they're making a tremendous amount of money half-assing their rules.

    I wish that I could disagree with the point of the second paragraph, but I cannot. I like the idea in the first paragraph, a lot, and I suppose that there has been some movement with positive responses in those directions e.g. Armageddon, new KT (many people seem to enjoy it), Crusade... Maybe this is the way to move forward. People need not engage with 40K and can rather put energies into other in-universe systems





    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    PenitentJake wrote:
    So you're saying Crusade was made for tournament players? Because Crusade didn't exist until 9th, and now that it does, it's all I play.

    People who believe this tripe are people who only play matched. If you want to say "9th's matched play is THE tournament edition," that's another thing entirely, and I wouldn't bother wasting my time arguing it.

    But to pretend that Crusade doesn't exist to advance a personal narrative about the edition as a whole IS a bit of a flawed argument, yes?
    This is a very long-winded way of saying "I didn't watch the video!".

    Watch the video!
    Spoiler:

    PenitentJake wrote:
    Look, the subscription services that GW has are: the Hachette model subscription- zero rules locked behind anything, 100% optional; the App- everything available in App also available on paper, so again, 100% optional; and finally, Warhammer+ - pure media, zero rules behind pay walls. I suppose you can lump White Dwarf in with subscription services as well, and again, the vast majority of rules content is once again 100% optional. So I'm not really sure what you're complaining about.
    I wasn't aware I was complaining???

    I'm expressing a concern that GW has fallen in love with their W+ service and so are going to shift as much there as possible.

    PenitentJake wrote:
    As for cards, a $1.00 stack of 3x5 index cards, a ball point pen and 30 minutes with the dex I already own will give me all the cards I need, and ONLY the cards I need.
    Bully for you, but that's not what I meant and I'm sure you knew that.

    PenitentJake wrote:
    Sure, GW's printed cards are convenient if you've got the disposable income. But anyone who thinks they are necessary has some real cognitive issues that should be worked out. Are there people who also believe you can only play 40k with official 40k faction dice at $30.00 a box too? Probably... And they are just as wrong
    This isn't specifically 40k related, but GW has stopped putting up Warscroll PDFs on the store for everything released since Dominion. This is what I mean when I say that I fear this kind of action will increase/spread.

    PenitentJake wrote:
    I happen to like 9th. I know that's a minority opinion on Dakka and in certain other corners of the Internet. But every time a thread like this appears, I feel it's important to post once to prevent it from being yet another echo chamber.
    I want to know where I said I didn't like 9th in this thread, or why you feel the need to defend it.




    it was a good video with a lot of thought behind it from a smart man who knows a LOT about this hobby. Recommended viewing/listening, indeed.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     Aenar wrote:
    9th core rules are ok, nothing incredible but an improvement over 8th ed ones for sure.
    It's the additional rules on top and how they are distributed across tens of books, FAQs and Erratas that make it a complete mess.
    Without a certain russian website it'd be almost impossible for a new player to understand where a certain rule comes from.
    Balance has basically never been worse, probably as a consequence of that.

    Core rules in the 5th-7th period were better imho, more complex but more fun.
    If we had balance updates and FAQs back then, that would've been the peak of 40K for sure. What ruined 7th was a handful of broken rules (invisibility, alliances, ...) and the inherent unbalance of faction books that were never touched again once released.


    I have made bold what seems to be the most common complaint that I have heard/seen. That resource website to which you point is a go-to for light reading into the mechanics of the not-so-grim dark for me, also, alongside a few other resources. What is confusing though is the balance issue, as other commenters in this thread seem to indicate that balance is OK. I have seen this issue up and down since 9th edition was released. My understanding was that things were getting better outside of a few broken units, though GW marketing being involved in rules writing seems still to be a big problem, with players who seem to purposefully misread rules for advantage regardless of common sense being the perhaps the second biggest source of complaints.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/11 17:28:43


    Post by: PenitentJake


     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    PenitentJake wrote:
    So you're saying Crusade was made for tournament players? Because Crusade didn't exist until 9th, and now that it does, it's all I play.

    People who believe this tripe are people who only play matched. If you want to say "9th's matched play is THE tournament edition," that's another thing entirely, and I wouldn't bother wasting my time arguing it.

    But to pretend that Crusade doesn't exist to advance a personal narrative about the edition as a whole IS a bit of a flawed argument, yes?
    This is a very long-winded way of saying "I didn't watch the video!".

    Watch the video!


    You are correct, I didn't watch the video; I will when I get back home. But what I was reacting to is the text I quoted- text in which you said that the guy in the video said 9th was the tournament edition. The same quoted text also said YOU have been saying since the beginning of 9th that it is the tournament edition.

    Now the dude in the video may provide more nuance; HE might say in his video that the Matched play rules are the tournament edition. Whether or not he does, however does not change the fact that YOU posted the text I quoted; text which unequivocally says that YOU have been saying 9th is the tournament edition for some time now. I am merely pointing out that 2/3 ways to play were NOT designed for tournaments.

    But you've got me talked into watching the video, and maybe I will post another reaction once I get the chance. Just want to be clear though- my reaction, which you quoted above, was to your text. I am pretty sure YOU said that you've been saying for a while that 9th is THE tournament edition. Since neither Open play, nor Crusade were designed for tournaments, and both are a part of the 9th edition, the text that you wrote and I quoted is wrong, regardless of what the video says.

    You can say matched play is designed for tournament players. I would agree.

    You didn't.

    So I don't agree with what you wrote. I'll watch your video when I get a chance. It won't change the fact that only one of the three ways to play was designed for tournaments.

     H.B.M.C. wrote:

    PenitentJake wrote:
    Look, the subscription services that GW has are: the Hachette model subscription- zero rules locked behind anything, 100% optional; the App- everything available in App also available on paper, so again, 100% optional; and finally, Warhammer+ - pure media, zero rules behind pay walls. I suppose you can lump White Dwarf in with subscription services as well, and again, the vast majority of rules content is once again 100% optional. So I'm not really sure what you're complaining about.
    I wasn't aware I was complaining???

    I'm expressing a concern that GW has fallen in love with their W+ service and so are going to shift as much there as possible.


    This is totally fair. Reread your posts and Jeff's, and you're right; "complaining" was too strong a word. Sorry about that- I guess I'm just so used to 40 page dumpster fires of negativity that I sometimes see them coming before the discourse actually degenerates that far. My bad- I'll try to be more fair going forward.

    I will say there isn't any actual evidence to suggest that rules will eventually only be available via subscription; that's not the same as saying it won't happen; certainly it could. There just isn't any actual evidence yet that it will.

    Is that fair?

     H.B.M.C. wrote:

    PenitentJake wrote:
    As for cards, a $1.00 stack of 3x5 index cards, a ball point pen and 30 minutes with the dex I already own will give me all the cards I need, and ONLY the cards I need.
    Bully for you, but that's not what I meant and I'm sure you knew that.

    PenitentJake wrote:
    Sure, GW's printed cards are convenient if you've got the disposable income. But anyone who thinks they are necessary has some real cognitive issues that should be worked out. Are there people who also believe you can only play 40k with official 40k faction dice at $30.00 a box too? Probably... And they are just as wrong
    This isn't specifically 40k related, but GW has stopped putting up Warscroll PDFs on the store for everything released since Dominion. This is what I mean when I say that I fear this kind of action will increase/spread.


    Again, fair. When I first read your post, I didn't see the word "Unit" in front of the word "cards" - my bad. For what it's worth, I'm not fond of the "rules" that come in the box with 40k models- their use of symbols instead of words, and the omission of unit rules are less than ideal. Because I want the full dex anyway, it isn't as much of a problem for me as it might be for others, but I can see the point. I also have little to no knowledge of AoS, so I wasn't aware of the warscroll issue, and I will concede that yes, it does provide some justification for your fears.

     H.B.M.C. wrote:

    PenitentJake wrote:
    I happen to like 9th. I know that's a minority opinion on Dakka and in certain other corners of the Internet. But every time a thread like this appears, I feel it's important to post once to prevent it from being yet another echo chamber.
    I want to know where I said I didn't like 9th in this thread, or why you feel the need to defend it.


    Fair enough- you didn't say you don't like 9th. And rereading your post, it isn't as negative as it felt. Like I said earlier, I think I'm anticipating where it's going rather than reacting to what is actually written- I've just seen so many Dakka threads go that way.

    I feel the need to defend 9th since it feels like the majority on Dakka feel the need to attack it. But maybe I have my own biases that cause me to see attacks where none are intended.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/11 17:33:45


    Post by: jeff white


     kodos wrote:
    has 40k peaked?

    kind of, in a way that GW made promises but not fulfilled them and now see the backlash
    Spoiler:

    while Warhammer was in a bad shape before GW replaced it with AoS, 40k was on the edge as well at the end of 7th

    what kept the game not only alive but increased the number of players and sales to a point never seen before, was the simple promise that
    "this time, we have learned from the mistakes, and are really trying to achieve something better"

    it worked for 8th, but with 9th similar mistakes are made again while at the same time ignoring the situation for people during the pandemic

    I mean replacing books before a lot of people had a chance to play a single game with those rules was not the best decision, especially with the new stuff being late


    From a Rules point of view, the Core was never that big of a problem, the problem has always been with the Army Books and GW did not learned from this, always replacing the core but never manage to get appropriate army books out
    (hence 8th worked as a lot of people were playing with the Index lists far longer than they should have, some groups not jumping on the Codex version until all factions that were used got one)

    and now GW is back on the road, but with a lot more people playing, there are a lot more people being upset if things go the wrong way
    the loyal community that accepts everything GW is doing, is still there, but they are a minority now


    the current hype was very much build upon the goodwill of the community
    and GW is trying hard to destroy this

    Spoilered some good points in order to keep this post from eating up an entire page. Yeah, I get this feeling, and got this feeling from the podcast hosts to which I was listening yesterday, too. People seem to have had enough. The host who was most unimpressed by current 40K is not one to get jerked around, and that was the feeling that I was getting, that he just cannot take the game seriously anymore. Too much time and money investment for a sub-standard experience, when there are so many other things to do! My feeling was that, if a host with that sort of charisma comes off in this sort of way, consistently, against 40K and GW for these sorts of reasons, then this attitude will build in the community, and 40K will have peaked. This seems to be the moment that an arrogant company might push a ton of plastic and put rules behind a paywall or insist on releasing rules in expensive separate side-books and so on, while the community takes an attitude contrary to this big push. You make a good point about the lockdowns in this regards, with many people excited for their hobby while stuck at home, buying all sorts of books and models, only to not be able to use them, and if GW were to make a big push for a new release cycle as if this is the way to make more money, then I can also foresee many people rejecting such a move, outright, and ... I mean, I haven't seen a GW 40K model on "discount" at a local hobby store for a long time, since they were made of lead, but it could happen again.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/11 17:35:51


    Post by: jeff white


    PenitentJake wrote:
    So you're saying ...
    I feel the need to defend 9th since it feels like the majority on Dakka feel the need to attack it. But maybe I have my own biases that cause me to see attacks where none are intended.

    Deleted a lot so as not to eat up the entire page with quotes (again). Exalted. Thanks for the follow up, Jake.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/11 17:49:07


    Post by: vict0988


    9th is perfect for casual play. With a pruning of Stratagems and removal of Chapter Tactics, Combat Doctrines or Super Doctrines and a new testing methodology 9th would become perfect for competitive play as well.

    8th did competitive play better, more of the gimmicks and gotchas were in the core rules rather than codexes, disabling charges by placing models in on top of terrain without leaving room for chargers and 3-pointing with most factions having no escape. These things also made it a lot worse as a casual edition, because to some casual means narrative and unchargable units and 3-point manouvres are anything but narrative.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/11 17:50:59


    Post by: Eihnlazer


    Command points are a big issue of contention.

    There are too many and they are too necessary atm.


    We should honestly just go back to units having their own special rules, and drop command points down big time.

    They should actually work more like they do in the new KT 2021, with stuff you can activate in the command phase that works for the whole turn.

    Having only 3-8 CP the entire game and way less stratagems that are necessary for units to operate effectively would be far healthier for the game.


    Alternating activations are a possible step, but it would have to be a bit different.

    I'd like it more if the game went straight to one of each phase per turn, instead of both players having all the phases.
    One command phase, that players take turns doing stuff in, one movement phase, that players take turns in, etc.

    This would also open up potential actions or things for armies that dont participate in a phase.
    Your army has no psychers? Well every time its your activation in the psychic phase, you can attempt an action, or attempt to shake off a debuff your opponent has placed on you.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/11 18:04:00


    Post by: AnomanderRake


     jeff white wrote:
     AnomanderRake wrote:
    I think GW should try and push more support into side games, and try and broaden their umbrella to cater to more types of people rather than continuing to insist that (whatever the current edition of 40k is) should be all things to all people when it often quite manifestly isn't.

    I think GW is going to continue chugging along at the same old pace throwing random half-thought-out ideas into new editions of 40k and putting out undersupported side games because they're making a tremendous amount of money half-assing their rules.

    I wish that I could disagree with the point of the second paragraph, but I cannot. I like the idea in the first paragraph, a lot, and I suppose that there has been some movement with positive responses in those directions e.g. Armageddon, new KT (many people seem to enjoy it), Crusade... Maybe this is the way to move forward. People need not engage with 40K and can rather put energies into other in-universe systems...


    I'm hoping the rumored new 30k stuff comes with a resurgence in official support/plastic models, so we can have 9th for the people who like 9th and 30k with facings and scatter dice for those of us who'd prefer that.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/11 18:09:13


    Post by: Gregor Samsa


    I strongly agree with the idea that strategems have become something quite bad for 40k.

    Some of that is design logic: great imbalance between strategems that render some useless. They also paradoxically often reduce the strategy of the game itself.

    Game's being decided because of one strategem that an opponent couldn't know about as it was locked inside a $50 shoddily made book that is only tangentially relevant to the game itself reduces the strategic and tactical merit of the gameplay.

    Returning USR and giving strategems to specific units as abilities that are all clearly documented in the faction's ONE codex would be a huge positive change.

    Some of that is business logic: driving sales through paywalling strategems within otherwise forgettable and not worth the oil/paper required to produce them (psychic awakening stuff).

    It just leaves a bad taste in people's mouths. How could it not? Especially hobbyists who have been around for 40 years or so...

    40k is definitely going through its "emperor has no clothes moment". From the outside it appears as though it is an untouchable giant. But from within, and from those of us who have been around the block, there are real cracks in the foundation.

    40k is certainly my group's "last resort" game and only played when we feel more "sci-fi" than fantasy. With the new KT out, it will scratch the "sci-fi" itch for sometime, as the chore of 2000 points of 40k just isn't worth it.

    There's too many pointless hurdles to get through (multiple rules books, errata, faq) and then the actual mechanics are super underwhelming (a 25 year old IGOUGO system that the Company won't touch as they're afraid the kill the goose which lays the golden eggs).

    I don't hold out much hope for 10th edition (as the rules are probably already finished for it already!).

    But what I do think is that if 40k doesn't re-invent itself, there is a huge gap in market there for a new sci-fi "mass battle" game to give it a good run for its money. This is likely why they're litigating so aggressively, to try and scare competition away.

    Part of the reason AoS is doing merely so-so is that there are tons of fantastic fantasy/historical rulesets out there already. My group is much more likely to play warmaster, hail caesar, WHFB 7th edition before we would ever get around to wanting to play AoS.

    Right now 40k has very little competition in the sci-fi setting. If they keep burning their customers and refuse to develop a better version of the game, eventually a product will come along that seriously threatens it because they've been too lazy in updating their own game.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/11 18:15:33


    Post by: AnomanderRake


    PenitentJake wrote:
    ...I feel the need to defend 9th since it feels like the majority on Dakka feel the need to attack it. But maybe I have my own biases that cause me to see attacks where none are intended...


    Most discussions of tabletop games seem to take either the position that because I'm not having fun the game is objectively bad and there's no way you could be having fun unless there's something wrong with you, or because I am having fun the game is objectively good and there's no way you aren't having fun unless there's something wrong with you. It's all rooted in the idea that we all engage with games the same way, which is increasingly wrong as the market expands and more people try to play wargames, and yet the idea seems to get more and more entrenched as 40k gets bigger. Personally I've mostly given up on the idea that 40k ought to be something I like, because the designers and I have some very fundamental differences of opinion on how a game ought to be run, and I'm trying to spend more time evangelizing for people to try more games instead of assuming 40k must be a universal system that appeals to everyone and tabletop gaming needs to start and stop there.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/11 18:52:45


    Post by: Rhia_Stadtfeld


    As someone who hasn't played in probably over 10-12 years now, dropping back in has been quite overwhelming. Finding a community or even friends with a relaxed approach to the game seems more difficult nowadays.

    I actually moved away for those 10 years to a role play game set in the 41st millennium as it was the lore and faction profiles that drew me in and what I primarily loved most.

    There are some parts of 9th that do intrigue me, namely the crusades and I have heard good things about the missions especially comparable to 3rd and 4th Ed.

    I think the biggest grey area and off switch for me so far, Are changes or "advances" if you like in the lore, some of it feels a little choppy and some armies feel as though they've been made to be "more competitive" with "units they need to balance things out" vs units they'd tradionally have as per their history.

    I was keen to try 9th, but the more I read on various forums the more inclined I am to revert back to 4th edition or even 2nd or 3rd as it still seems popular amongst people.

    I think there's clear difficulty in sating the veterans & attracting the new players alike especially when you have people, such as myself, who want to get back on the horse, but equally want to ride the old horse, not whatever 3 legged one is currently out there.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/11 18:59:49


    Post by: Da Boss


    I watched the video and broadly agree, but I also found late 8e pretty inaccessible for similar reasons. But it doesn't seem to be denting 40K much based on what I can see.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/11 19:41:51


    Post by: Blackie


    8th edition was more accessible only in the index era which lasted... one month maybe? And it was the most unbalanced edition ever in that period.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/11 19:43:31


    Post by: jeff white


    Eihnlazer wrote:Command points are a big issue of contention.
    There are too many and they are too necessary atm.
    We should honestly just go back to units having their own special rules, and drop command points down big time.
    They should actually work more like they do in the new KT 2021, with stuff you can activate in the command phase that works for the whole turn.
    Having only 3-8 CP the entire game and way less stratagems that are necessary for units to operate effectively would be far healthier for the game.

    Alternating activations are a possible step, but it would have to be a bit different.
    I'd like it more if the game went straight to one of each phase per turn, instead of both players having all the phases.
    One command phase, that players take turns doing stuff in, one movement phase, that players take turns in, etc.

    This would also open up potential actions or things for armies that dont participate in a phase.
    Your army has no psychers? Well every time its your activation in the psychic phase, you can attempt an action, or attempt to shake off a debuff your opponent has placed on you.

    These seem like good suggestions.
    1a) Drop CP (maybe completely) and
    1b) return to unit special rules (perhaps something like new KT).
    2) Alternate by phases rather than turns.

    AnomanderRake wrote:
    I'm hoping the rumored new 30k stuff comes with a resurgence in official support/plastic models, so we can have 9th for the people who like 9th and 30k with facings and scatter dice for those of us who'd prefer that.

    I am on the fence about this... I would like to stay involved in the current narrative (so-called "primaris" are useful idiot jackboots for heresy-on-high, to be purged accordingly) AND keep facings and templates and initiative and get rid of rando charges and CP and more .... and see no reason why a rules system could not be composed that allows for the plug and play of rules components that GW could simply draw from stuff that they already own, as they were present in prior editions or could be inspired from prior editions and improved for a new plug and play rules set. But, maybe marketing thinks it will be better business if they can try to sell another new line of hastiy composed computer art littered hardback collector's editions for yet another new and improved rules system. Fool me twice, umm, no. I like that other people like 30K, but we got plenty of heresy going on right here and now... lookin at you, Cawl.

    Gregor Samsa wrote:
    Spoiler:
    I strongly agree with the idea that strategems have become something quite bad for 40k.

    Some of that is design logic: great imbalance between strategems that render some useless. They also paradoxically often reduce the strategy of the game itself.

    Game's being decided because of one strategem that an opponent couldn't know about as it was locked inside a $50 shoddily made book that is only tangentially relevant to the game itself reduces the strategic and tactical merit of the gameplay.

    Returning USR and giving strategems to specific units as abilities that are all clearly documented in the faction's ONE codex would be a huge positive change.
    Spoiler:

    Some of that is business logic: driving sales through paywalling strategems within otherwise forgettable and not worth the oil/paper required to produce them (psychic awakening stuff).

    It just leaves a bad taste in people's mouths. How could it not? Especially hobbyists who have been around for 40 years or so...

    40k is definitely going through its "emperor has no clothes moment". From the outside it appears as though it is an untouchable giant. But from within, and from those of us who have been around the block, there are real cracks in the foundation.

    40k is certainly my group's "last resort" game and only played when we feel more "sci-fi" than fantasy. With the new KT out, it will scratch the "sci-fi" itch for sometime, as the chore of 2000 points of 40k just isn't worth it.
    Spoiler:

    There's too many pointless hurdles to get through (multiple rules books, errata, faq) and then the actual mechanics are super underwhelming (a 25 year old IGOUGO system that the Company won't touch as they're afraid the kill the goose which lays the golden eggs).

    I don't hold out much hope for 10th edition (as the rules are probably already finished for it already!).

    But what I do think is that if 40k doesn't re-invent itself, there is a huge gap in market there for a new sci-fi "mass battle" game to give it a good run for its money. This is likely why they're litigating so aggressively, to try and scare competition away.

    Part of the reason AoS is doing merely so-so is that there are tons of fantastic fantasy/historical rulesets out there already. My group is much more likely to play warmaster, hail caesar, WHFB 7th edition before we would ever get around to wanting to play AoS.

    Right now 40k has very little competition in the sci-fi setting. If they keep burning their customers and refuse to develop a better version of the game, eventually a product will come along that seriously threatens it because they've been too lazy in updating their own game.

    Finding lots of agreement on the USR angle, anti-strategem. The feeling about 40K being last resort is exactly the feeling that I got from that podcast host, too.

    Rhia_Stadtfeld wrote:As someone who hasn't played in probably over 10-12 years now, dropping back in has been quite overwhelming. Finding a community or even friends with a relaxed approach to the game seems more difficult nowadays.
    Spoiler:


    I actually moved away for those 10 years to a role play game set in the 41st millennium as it was the lore and faction profiles that drew me in and what I primarily loved most.

    There are some parts of 9th that do intrigue me, namely the crusades and I have heard good things about the missions especially comparable to 3rd and 4th Ed.

    I think the biggest grey area and off switch for me so far, Are changes or "advances" if you like in the lore, some of it feels a little choppy and some armies feel as though they've been made to be "more competitive" with "units they need to balance things out" vs units they'd tradionally have as per their history.

    I was keen to try 9th, but the more I read on various forums the more inclined I am to revert back to 4th edition or even 2nd or 3rd as it still seems popular amongst people.

    I think there's clear difficulty in sating the veterans & attracting the new players alike especially when you have people, such as myself, who want to get back on the horse, but equally want to ride the old horse, not whatever 3 legged one is currently out there.

    This comment speaks to Winters' "acessibility" of 8th assessment. For me, I was super excited about 8th when I saw Shadow War Armageddon, then super let down when I saw what 8th actually turned out to be. Maybe accessible, maybe good for share prices cuz a lot of people got hyped for a new approach (maybe oldsters misled by SWA as I intitially was), but not a game that I wanted to play. Indexes were a good idea...then they turned into a patchy cash grab and ... yeah, no. But, now, 2nd or 3rd or even 4th... talk about accessible! And affordable. And then there are some awesome hobby project house rule systems available right here on Dakka based on these older systems.

    So maybe back is the new forward for 40K.




    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/11 20:45:31


    Post by: Tyel


    I think the conflict will always be between accessibility and... variety (depth would probably be a better word, but that's seemingly a red flag to a bull and just leads to lots of semantic arguments).

    40k has undoubtedly grown more complicated and arguably less accessible since the 8th edition indexes. You've got the expansion of special rules (to be fair, Ad Mech are possibly the worst for this), stratagems, warlord traits, relics and often ludicrous numbers of chapters "just cos" rather than because they facilitate meaningfully different ways to play a faction.

    But if you have none of this stuff, you often find the game is very quickly solved (as was the case with the indexes). If two people who play once every six months have a game, that likely doesn't matter - they don't know how the game is solved because its all relatively new to them. But if you are playing a game (or three) every week it can very quickly become stale.

    One of the weaknesses of WHFB was that at a mechanical level, games often looked the same with the difference in armies often being skin deep. You had a range of scenarios to supposedly change this - but most of them were not meaningfully different, or so skewed as to be borderline unplayable, lets just reroll.

    You can play 40k without stratagems if you want to - I don't think it makes the game more accessible. You can talk about alternate activations, but thats a fundamental change at which point its basically not 40k as exists any more.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/11 20:47:53


    Post by: Gnarlly


    For me 40k peaked with 4th edition, the last edition where the main rulebook gave a damn about the hobby by including easy tips (and templates!) for building game tables, terrain pieces, and kitbashing models, with a lot of pictures of actual players' conversions. The 3rd edition codexes also included a lot of hobby info and examples of conversions.

    Now the books are focused just on selling GW's models, more and more monopose these days with fewer customization options, and any hobby advice and materials are expected to be separate purchases from GW.

    Gameplay-wise, having played 40k on and off from 2nd edition to 8th and being familiar with 9th edition's rules and codexes, I also go with 4th Edition with just a few house rules (ex. no Eldar grav tank defensive upgrades). Honorable mention to the new Apocalypse ruleset which is a lot of fun to play. It's very much like Epic in 28mm scale, but also able to played well at lower point levels approximating 2000-point standard 40k games. It's nice playing a "closed" / "complete" ruleset where books are not being added or rules not changing on a fast, regular basis.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/11 20:48:56


    Post by: Unit1126PLL


    The game is solved unless utterly buried in special rules....

    If only there was a way to design a simple game with depth enough to GO unsolved.

    There certainly aren't GOing to be any examples of a game that is centuries old, simple, and hasn't been solved. GO.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/11 20:59:55


    Post by: Rhia_Stadtfeld


    Back would be cool, but in equal measure the positives I like in 9th from what I've read so far:-

    - Crusades, cool as
    - Missions, far better than 3rd
    - Army & Faction Keywords for force org charts
    for combining forces. Also very cool.
    - Finally, psykers, for a galaxy rife with psychic ability, witch hunters etc, and those who should have them, they felt hugely neglected in previous editions.

    I'm sure as I go I'll find more things I like and don't as I'm yet to actually play a game so can't comment on the flow of things but I'm up for giving it a shot.

    Imo there will always be an imbalance or a meta or an optimal composition. So that's kind of a moot point across systems.

    I imagine 9th, probably is, for those seeking to play competitively very good. I remember playing sisters in 3rd and into 4th a fair way still on the 2nd Ed codex, and that... was a world of hurt.

    It doesn't help I'm not the best at being a socialble person so having stepped out and lost touch with those into the hobby or in my area has made it a little rough.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/11 21:16:34


    Post by: Aenar


     Rhia_Stadtfeld wrote:
    Back would be cool, but in equal measure the positives I like in 9th from what I've read so far:-

    - Crusades, cool as
    - Missions, far better than 3rd
    - Army & Faction Keywords for force org charts
    for combining forces. Also very cool.
    - Finally, psykers, for a galaxy rife with psychic ability, witch hunters etc, and those who should have them, they felt hugely neglected in previous editions.

    I agree on those points and I'd add terrain rules as well.

    The issues are mainly two imho, and they are pretty big ones:
    - unbalance (both internal, between units in the same book, and external, between factions), unequivocably more than in the past. The monthly goonhammer articles on the state of 40K meta show this with numbers, over and over.
    During past editions, 7th ed included, there wasn't such a big unbalance. And the game wasn't actively rebalanced back then. But then again, unbalance sells and GW profits from that.

    - rules bloat. Too many sources to draw rules from, too many stratagems, abilities, interactions, ... Some consolidation is desperately needed.
    but then again they are releasing campaign books for factions that have received their codex a month before.

    The core set of rules is mostly fine, a bit too much dumbed down for my tastes but it's ok. It's everything else on top that is ruining the experience.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/11 22:41:18


    Post by: Rhia_Stadtfeld


     Aenar wrote:


    The issues are mainly two imho, and they are pretty big ones:
    - unbalance (both internal, between units in the same book, and external, between factions), unequivocably more than in the past. The monthly goonhammer articles on the state of 40K meta show this with numbers, over and over.
    During past editions, 7th ed included, there wasn't such a big unbalance. And the game wasn't actively rebalanced back then. But then again, unbalance sells and GW profits from that.



    Going into this from a re releasing / new units / sales meta and what I miss view - we've entirely lost some factions or branches of, gained others and overall there just seems to be less of the cool old school style minis with heaps of customization options for unique characters given the lack of a wargear section like in 2nd-4th. If they landed somewhere between 4th and 9th mixed, brought back the less common forces like the Vostroyans, Lost & the Damned. Hell, I don't even dislike the primaris marines, especially from a scaling standing, I think the astartes needed an upscale anyway, and particularly the multi wound suits them.

    A lot of the decisions, new minis for some factions and general style shifts feel a bit like a cash cow clutch to me and not like they "belong". However it's REALLY nice to see the mechanicus & knights represented on tabletop now along with super heavies.

    There's an abundance of model ranges they could do people would love to see, or dig out through the lore.

    It's a shame that some armies are literally scattered across editions these days.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/12 02:18:56


    Post by: ERJAK


     Blackie wrote:
    8th edition was more accessible only in the index era which lasted... one month maybe? And it was the most unbalanced edition ever in that period.


    No it wasn't. Even max strength guillamen stormraven was nowhere near as broken as end of life 7th.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     Aenar wrote:
     Rhia_Stadtfeld wrote:
    Back would be cool, but in equal measure the positives I like in 9th from what I've read so far:-

    - Crusades, cool as
    - Missions, far better than 3rd
    - Army & Faction Keywords for force org charts
    for combining forces. Also very cool.
    - Finally, psykers, for a galaxy rife with psychic ability, witch hunters etc, and those who should have them, they felt hugely neglected in previous editions.

    I agree on those points and I'd add terrain rules as well.

    The issues are mainly two imho, and they are pretty big ones:
    - unbalance (both internal, between units in the same book, and external, between factions), unequivocably more than in the past. The monthly goonhammer articles on the state of 40K meta show this with numbers, over and over.
    During past editions, 7th ed included, there wasn't such a big unbalance. And the game wasn't actively rebalanced back then. But then again, unbalance sells and GW profits from that.

    - rules bloat. Too many sources to draw rules from, too many stratagems, abilities, interactions, ... Some consolidation is desperately needed.
    but then again they are releasing campaign books for factions that have received their codex a month before.

    The core set of rules is mostly fine, a bit too much dumbed down for my tastes but it's ok. It's everything else on top that is ruining the experience.


    7th edition only had 3 armies that even COULD win events. Chaos daemons, Eldar and Space marines. Each of those factions individually had more tournament WINS than any other faction had PLACINGS by the end of 7th. Even Triptide Tau, Warcon Admech, Renegades and dinner plates, and Decurions didn't actually have a chance in 90% of events.

    If you want to argue that 9th's balance is bad, feel free. There's a strong argument for that. But at least A. You have FOUR factions that have a decent shot at taking events and B. Armies aren't winning with 2% casuality rates because they have a 2+rerollable invul and a 4+ rerollable feel no pain on an invisible deathstar.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     Unit1126PLL wrote:
    The game is solved unless utterly buried in special rules....

    If only there was a way to design a simple game with depth enough to GO unsolved.

    There certainly aren't GOing to be any examples of a game that is centuries old, simple, and hasn't been solved. GO.


    Soo...you think they adapt GO to 40k? Or use GO rules with 40k models? Or design a game that, largely by accident, persists for several hundred years? Because none of those seem practical.



    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/12 03:06:21


    Post by: ERJAK


     jeff white wrote:
    Eihnlazer wrote:Command points are a big issue of contention.
    There are too many and they are too necessary atm.
    We should honestly just go back to units having their own special rules, and drop command points down big time.
    They should actually work more like they do in the new KT 2021, with stuff you can activate in the command phase that works for the whole turn.
    Having only 3-8 CP the entire game and way less stratagems that are necessary for units to operate effectively would be far healthier for the game.

    Alternating activations are a possible step, but it would have to be a bit different.
    I'd like it more if the game went straight to one of each phase per turn, instead of both players having all the phases.
    One command phase, that players take turns doing stuff in, one movement phase, that players take turns in, etc.

    This would also open up potential actions or things for armies that dont participate in a phase.
    Your army has no psychers? Well every time its your activation in the psychic phase, you can attempt an action, or attempt to shake off a debuff your opponent has placed on you.

    These seem like good suggestions.
    1a) Drop CP (maybe completely) and
    1b) return to unit special rules (perhaps something like new KT).
    2) Alternate by phases rather than turns.

    AnomanderRake wrote:
    I'm hoping the rumored new 30k stuff comes with a resurgence in official support/plastic models, so we can have 9th for the people who like 9th and 30k with facings and scatter dice for those of us who'd prefer that.

    I am on the fence about this... I would like to stay involved in the current narrative (so-called "primaris" are useful idiot jackboots for heresy-on-high, to be purged accordingly) AND keep facings and templates and initiative and get rid of rando charges and CP and more .... and see no reason why a rules system could not be composed that allows for the plug and play of rules components that GW could simply draw from stuff that they already own, as they were present in prior editions or could be inspired from prior editions and improved for a new plug and play rules set. But, maybe marketing thinks it will be better business if they can try to sell another new line of hastiy composed computer art littered hardback collector's editions for yet another new and improved rules system. Fool me twice, umm, no. I like that other people like 30K, but we got plenty of heresy going on right here and now... lookin at you, Cawl.

    Gregor Samsa wrote:
    Spoiler:
    I strongly agree with the idea that strategems have become something quite bad for 40k.

    Some of that is design logic: great imbalance between strategems that render some useless. They also paradoxically often reduce the strategy of the game itself.

    Game's being decided because of one strategem that an opponent couldn't know about as it was locked inside a $50 shoddily made book that is only tangentially relevant to the game itself reduces the strategic and tactical merit of the gameplay.

    Returning USR and giving strategems to specific units as abilities that are all clearly documented in the faction's ONE codex would be a huge positive change.
    Spoiler:

    Some of that is business logic: driving sales through paywalling strategems within otherwise forgettable and not worth the oil/paper required to produce them (psychic awakening stuff).

    It just leaves a bad taste in people's mouths. How could it not? Especially hobbyists who have been around for 40 years or so...

    40k is definitely going through its "emperor has no clothes moment". From the outside it appears as though it is an untouchable giant. But from within, and from those of us who have been around the block, there are real cracks in the foundation.

    40k is certainly my group's "last resort" game and only played when we feel more "sci-fi" than fantasy. With the new KT out, it will scratch the "sci-fi" itch for sometime, as the chore of 2000 points of 40k just isn't worth it.
    Spoiler:

    There's too many pointless hurdles to get through (multiple rules books, errata, faq) and then the actual mechanics are super underwhelming (a 25 year old IGOUGO system that the Company won't touch as they're afraid the kill the goose which lays the golden eggs).

    I don't hold out much hope for 10th edition (as the rules are probably already finished for it already!).

    But what I do think is that if 40k doesn't re-invent itself, there is a huge gap in market there for a new sci-fi "mass battle" game to give it a good run for its money. This is likely why they're litigating so aggressively, to try and scare competition away.

    Part of the reason AoS is doing merely so-so is that there are tons of fantastic fantasy/historical rulesets out there already. My group is much more likely to play warmaster, hail caesar, WHFB 7th edition before we would ever get around to wanting to play AoS.

    Right now 40k has very little competition in the sci-fi setting. If they keep burning their customers and refuse to develop a better version of the game, eventually a product will come along that seriously threatens it because they've been too lazy in updating their own game.

    Finding lots of agreement on the USR angle, anti-strategem. The feeling about 40K being last resort is exactly the feeling that I got from that podcast host, too.

    Rhia_Stadtfeld wrote:As someone who hasn't played in probably over 10-12 years now, dropping back in has been quite overwhelming. Finding a community or even friends with a relaxed approach to the game seems more difficult nowadays.
    Spoiler:


    I actually moved away for those 10 years to a role play game set in the 41st millennium as it was the lore and faction profiles that drew me in and what I primarily loved most.

    There are some parts of 9th that do intrigue me, namely the crusades and I have heard good things about the missions especially comparable to 3rd and 4th Ed.

    I think the biggest grey area and off switch for me so far, Are changes or "advances" if you like in the lore, some of it feels a little choppy and some armies feel as though they've been made to be "more competitive" with "units they need to balance things out" vs units they'd tradionally have as per their history.

    I was keen to try 9th, but the more I read on various forums the more inclined I am to revert back to 4th edition or even 2nd or 3rd as it still seems popular amongst people.

    I think there's clear difficulty in sating the veterans & attracting the new players alike especially when you have people, such as myself, who want to get back on the horse, but equally want to ride the old horse, not whatever 3 legged one is currently out there.

    This comment speaks to Winters' "acessibility" of 8th assessment. For me, I was super excited about 8th when I saw Shadow War Armageddon, then super let down when I saw what 8th actually turned out to be. Maybe accessible, maybe good for share prices cuz a lot of people got hyped for a new approach (maybe oldsters misled by SWA as I intitially was), but not a game that I wanted to play. Indexes were a good idea...then they turned into a patchy cash grab and ... yeah, no. But, now, 2nd or 3rd or even 4th... talk about accessible! And affordable. And then there are some awesome hobby project house rule systems available right here on Dakka based on these older systems.

    So maybe back is the new forward for 40K.




    I can see where people are coming from about 9th not being what they want out of 40k. I've 100% given up on trying to teach anyone who is even slightly competitively minded the game or bring in any new players because explaining how a competitive army plays just takes to long.

    But past editions weren't better. The rules were hundreds of pages long, filled to the brim with opaque nonsense and poor design choices the same way every rule GW has ever written has been. Once you learned the game it was relatively simple to keep up to date with it but it would be a week of sitting around reading the rulebook before someone could even reasonably be able to play through a basic movement phase->shooting phase. Remember, back in those days it took 30+ pages just to tell you how to move a model from point A to point B. With 9th you could feasibly play a basic marine vs marine 500pt game the first day you pick up the rulebook and be pretty confident in the basics by the end of it.

    It's not a 'trusty old horse' vs a three legged horse, it's a taxidermy of the horse you remember vs a V8 Supercharged TURBO-STALLION! Brought to you by REDBULL! Neither of which are ideal for a jaunt around the old farmstead.

    Older editions started off with overbloated rules and added more stuff relatively sparingly until they got boring or broke completely (looking at you 5th). 9th started with accessible, relatively streamlined rules and built on that to the point where even knowing what your own stuff does takes a massive amount of time and like 3 reminder apps.

    GW should take what they learned with 9th and go back to formula a bit:

    1. It should be reasonable for 2 new players to pick up the rulebook and play a basic starter game the same afternoon AND GET MOST OF THE BASIC RULE RIGHT.

    2. Rule of 3, anti-soup, more limited probability manipulation (i.e. targeted rerolls vs Auras), and all other 'Stop me before I hurt someone!' rules GW has realized they need in order to reign in their worst impulses should be foundational. GW can't be trusted with, for example, the old force org that let the loyal 32 dominate for a long time.

    3. Bring the damage down a bit. Shooting and melee. That way you don't end up with things like the vehicle teeter totter we're seeing right now (i.e. Melta makes Vehicles bad so no one brings vehicles. No one bringing vehicles means people stop bringing melta. No one bringing melta means vehicles get good, vehicles being good means more people bring melta. Etc.) Or the being reliant on terrain to extend engagements.

    4. Units and weapons have to be FUNCTIONAL to be BALANCE-ABLE. Multimeltas may not be balanced now, but at least there's points values could actually influence that. Pre-melta change, the multimelta was arguably worse than a regular melta point for point and neither gun was worth it compared to plasma.

    5. Decent Terrain rules plus solid mission design mean that CQC CAN be viable, even necessary.

    6. Put a cap on how complex an army is allowed to get before you stop giving them more rules. Current Sisters of Battle are probably over that limit. Current Admech have individual UNITS that are over that limit.

    6. Depth and Complexity are not the same thing. Reroll auras and Defensive bubbles are not depth. Vehicle facings and blast templates are not depth.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/12 04:16:08


    Post by: ccs


    ERJAK wrote:

    But past editions weren't better. The rules were hundreds of pages long, filled to the brim with opaque nonsense and poor design choices the same way every rule GW has ever written has been. Once you learned the game it was relatively simple to keep up to date with it but it would be a week of sitting around reading the rulebook before someone could even reasonably be able to play through a basic movement phase->shooting phase. Remember, back in those days it took 30+ pages just to tell you how to move a model from point A to point B. With 9th you could feasibly play a basic marine vs marine 500pt game the first day you pick up the rulebook and be pretty confident in the basics by the end of it.


    Hmm. Either your describing 7th ed (the only edition I didn't play & don't own any books for) OR your prone to hyperbole, misremembering RT - 6e, & played these games with exceptionally stupid people.
    Because your not describing any edition of 40k I've ever played....


    ERJAK wrote:

    Older editions started off with overbloated rules and added more stuff relatively sparingly until they got boring or broke completely (looking at you 5th).


    Again, must've been a 7th ed thing. Because GWs never been shy about adding new/more stuff. The only difference was that you didn't receive it all within a 3 yr window.



    ERJAK wrote:

    3. Bring the damage down a bit. Shooting and melee. That way you don't end up with things like the vehicle teeter totter we're seeing right now (i.e. Melta makes Vehicles bad so no one brings vehicles. No one bringing vehicles means people stop bringing melta. No one bringing melta means vehicles get good, vehicles being good means more people bring melta. Etc.) Or the being reliant on terrain to extend engagements.


    Not sure how you expect GW to solve that one. The dance of bringing/not bringing of AT weapons vs bringing/not bringing vehicles to a game has been going on longer than 40ks existed.
    It's just answering the fundamental questions of "What's the other guy likely to bring? How can I take advantage of that?"


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/12 04:39:48


    Post by: Siegfriedfr


    40k needs MASSIVE pruning in all areas related to army books, and core cules still need improvement.

    Rules should be free, in a way they already are, thanks to Russia, but GW didn't catch up.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/12 04:57:42


    Post by: vict0988


    ccs wrote:
    ERJAK wrote:

    But past editions weren't better. The rules were hundreds of pages long, filled to the brim with opaque nonsense and poor design choices the same way every rule GW has ever written has been. Once you learned the game it was relatively simple to keep up to date with it but it would be a week of sitting around reading the rulebook before someone could even reasonably be able to play through a basic movement phase->shooting phase. Remember, back in those days it took 30+ pages just to tell you how to move a model from point A to point B. With 9th you could feasibly play a basic marine vs marine 500pt game the first day you pick up the rulebook and be pretty confident in the basics by the end of it.


    Hmm. Either your describing 7th ed (the only edition I didn't play & don't own any books for) OR your prone to hyperbole, misremembering RT - 6e, & played these games with exceptionally stupid people.
    Because your not describing any edition of 40k I've ever played....

    72 pages for 5th edition. 39 for basic rules in 9th and 8th was shorter, 9th is just written to be easier to understand, something that doesn't apply to 5th, it's just long and bloated because wargames are supposed to have long and bloated rules brblrblr. 18 pages vs 7 pages for shooting.

    ERJAK wrote:

    3. Bring the damage down a bit. Shooting and melee. That way you don't end up with things like the vehicle teeter totter we're seeing right now (i.e. Melta makes Vehicles bad so no one brings vehicles. No one bringing vehicles means people stop bringing melta. No one bringing melta means vehicles get good, vehicles being good means more people bring melta. Etc.) Or the being reliant on terrain to extend engagements.


    Not sure how you expect GW to solve that one. The dance of bringing/not bringing of AT weapons vs bringing/not bringing vehicles to a game has been going on longer than 40ks existed.
    It's just answering the fundamental questions of "What's the other guy likely to bring? How can I take advantage of that?"

    It's only a problem when one or the other is OP, otherwise, it won't be the end of the world when you bring a few tanks against someone who brought a few meltaguns, only against a list with a tonne of tanks or a tonne of meltaguns will a balanced list be in trouble. When anti-whatever guns are so OP that an army bringing a balanced amount of them destroys an army with a balanced amount of whatever then things are out of wack.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/12 05:25:34


    Post by: drbored


    There will always be a better edition, and that opinion will change based on people's feelings. I personally don't miss vehicle sides, templates, or scatter dice, but I do miss parts of the old AP system. I'm not a fan of stratagems and the mortal wound spam that some armies need to operate, but I do like the relative simplicity of the targeting rules, shooting, and fighting.

    What I'd love to see going forward is a complete restructuring of the whole stratagem system. Fewer stratagems, fewer command points overall, and fewer reliance on those stratagems and command points. When a space marine player is able to use Transhuman Physiology every turn to save their best units, you've headed too far into the wrong side of the system. On top of that, many factions have 20+ stratagems but only 3-4 are used regularly. Chop out the junk, weaken the stratagems, make the game simpler from that standpoint, and make stratagems a once-per-game thing, no matter what they are (except maybe command re-roll I guess). THEN you'll have a strategic game. Do you pop transhuman physiology first turn to keep your army tip top shape, or do you save it for a clutch moment near the end of the game to secure those objectives? That's the kind of decision I want to make.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/12 06:24:12


    Post by: Blackie


     Aenar wrote:


    The issues are mainly two imho, and they are pretty big ones:
    - unbalance (both internal, between units in the same book, and external, between factions), unequivocably more than in the past. The monthly goonhammer articles on the state of 40K meta show this with numbers, over and over.
    During past editions, 7th ed included, there wasn't such a big unbalance. And the game wasn't actively rebalanced back then. But then again, unbalance sells and GW profits from that.



    What???? These days we probably have the most balanced edition of 40k ever, both internal and external. Probably you are biased as I assume you play tau, a race that is currently suffering (and it doesn't have a 9th edition codex yet, don't forget that) but was utterly OP in 7th.

    The monthly goonhammer articles on the state of 40k shows that in just 18 months a lot of different stuff worked at competitve levels. Lots of different factions, all with different lists archetypes, at top levels as well. That's proof of high internal and external balance. In 7th it was only a matter of 3 top armies, basically with the very same lists.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    ERJAK wrote:


    No it wasn't. Even max strength guillamen stormraven was nowhere near as broken as end of life 7th.



    It was. Competitively speaking maybe not but that's not the point, when an ork boy is 6ppm and a deffkopta is 83ppm you only see lists of 180 boyz, cheap artillery and cheap characters. Anything else had insane prices. At the same time you saw AM armies with tons of bodies, tons of cheap artillery and as many tanks they could get.

    Points costs were unreasonable, pretty much for everyone. To the point that each army had basically one build. I had way more fun with my crappy 7th orks than during the index era, despite the fact that the greentide was fairly competitive in that period. But competitive how? By slowplaying games that can't last more than 2-3 turns due to time limitations and by bringing an extreme skew list. I also played Drukhari and SW, both were more fun to play in 7th. I'd take 7th over 8th index any day.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/12 07:33:47


    Post by: Sim-Life


     Blackie wrote:


    What???? These days we probably have the most balanced edition of 40k ever, both internal and external. Probably you are biased as I assume you play tau, a race that is currently suffering (and it doesn't have a 9th edition codex yet, don't forget that) but was utterly OP in 7th.


    - just because you keep saying its balanced doesn't make it so.
    - saying its the most balanced 40k ever is like saying its the most balanced endgame jenga tower ever. Its still unbalanced, just in different ways
    -personal attacks don't strengthen your argument

    Also on-topic:
    For me, 40k peaked at pre-PA 8th. It was somewhat simple enough to sit down and have a good time. You could sit down, throw together a list and throw dice and have a laugh with friends. Now it feels like 80% of the game is in rule books, tied up in super-doctrines, strats, faction abilities and secondary objectives.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/12 08:07:25


    Post by: Blackie


    Well I invited to read goonhammer articles about state of the meta. Anyone can clearly see how many factions get good results. There will always be top tiers, but how many solid mid tiers we have now? More than in the past, and some of them don't even have an updated codex. Armies that are considered bad by many tournament players are actually pretty solid especially in casual gaming, see Necrons. Also lists are very different from each other among the same factions, which is huge.

    Honestly I don't see any significant difference about bloat or complexity if you play pre-PA 8th or 9th. In fact 9th codex removed most of the broken combos from 8th, which means the game is way more friendly oriented now.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/12 08:40:18


    Post by: Sgt. Cortez


    Have to agree with blackie here. What keeps 9th back is GWs reluctance to release updated rules for all factions. There should have been Indexes in a CA at the end of 2020 for CSM, Tau, Genestealers, IG and Eldar, probably. (Pretty sure I forgot some important factions that also didn't have proper PA rules).
    So far 9th edition Codexes are properly balanced to each other, outliers are fixed fast (compared to never like in 7- editions). And factions that got their PA at the end of 8th are also on par.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/12 09:00:54


    Post by: Arbitrator


     Da Boss wrote:
    Isn't 9e incredibly popular? I thought GW were making more money than ever these days. It's not quite to my taste either (I don't like mechanics like command points that much and would prefer alternating activation) but it seems to be "peak 40K" for loads of people.

    7th was incredibly popular too - GW were still raking in millions and was the biggest played wargame bar none, but if you asked that question on the internet all you'd hear is how it was the worst game ever made and you couldn't force them at gunpoint to play it (except maybe some HH fans and even then, it only being good with the HH rules).

    People don't play 40k because they think it's a good system, they play 40k because it's what they've always played and/or what everybody else is playing.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/12 09:25:01


    Post by: H.B.M.C.


    Sgt. Cortez wrote:
    There should have been Indexes in a CA at the end of 2020 for CSM, Tau, Genestealers, IG and Eldar, probably.
    Why? What would that have achieved except giving CSM 5 books in two editions (Index 1, Codex 1, Codex 2, Index 2, Codex 3)?

    The Indices were necessary in 8th because 8th invalidated all previous rules in much the same way as 3rd Ed invalidated all previous rules. Indices are not the answer.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/12 09:27:41


    Post by: kodos


    it is interesting how most suggestions get into the change of the core rules instead of the army books, were the core is not the problem

    there was never a real rules bloat in the core, neither in 5th, 7th nor in 9th.
    5th might have been more pages than 9th, but than all the rules were in the core and not in the army books, it started to get bad by the point that GW thought the Special Rules in the core book are not enough and slightly different special rules need to be in the army rules just to make things different

    and this was a problem since 3rd, that by the end of an edition, half of the universal special rules from the core were not used any more but replaced by slightly different army special rules in the different codices
    removing USRs from the core did not solve the problem that every unit got their own special rules for the sake of having a special rule

     Arbitrator wrote:

    7th was incredibly popular too - GW were still raking in millions and was the biggest played wargame bar none, but if you asked that question on the internet all you'd hear is how it was the worst game ever made and you couldn't force them at gunpoint to play it (except maybe some HH fans and even then, it only being good with the HH rules).

    People don't play 40k because they think it's a good system, they play 40k because it's what they've always played and/or what everybody else is playing.


    Situation must have been different in US than in Europe, as while 40k saw a rise at the start of 7th after 6th drove away a lot of people, mid 7th as Formations were introduced, it was very rarely played here and dropped to an all time low at the end of 7th

    those that still played it might have compensated in sales but the game was not that popular any more

     Arbitrator wrote:
    Isn't 9e incredibly popular? I thought GW were making more money than ever these days. It's not quite to my taste either (I don't like mechanics like command points that much and would prefer alternating activation) but it seems to be "peak 40K" for loads of people.

    we still have a pandemic going and a high number in model sales does not mean a lot of people are playing the game, specially as there are still restrictions in lot of countries


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/12 09:29:03


    Post by: vict0988


     Blackie wrote:
    Honestly I don't see any significant difference about bloat or complexity if you play pre-PA 8th or 9th.

    You mean post-PA right? After everyone (except Necrons) got their Psychic Awakening update. I disagree a bit, AdMech and Drukhari are more bloated because AdMech got their Combat Doctrines and both got more rules in campaign supplements with specialist armies or whatever they're called. Space Marines are less bloated, for now, but they're probably going to get a tonne more rules by the end of 9th. Comparing pre-PA 8th and 9th after several campaign supplements have been released isn't even fair, 8th was way less bloated back then.
    Sgt. Cortez wrote:
    Have to agree with blackie here. What keeps 9th back is GWs reluctance to release updated rules for all factions. There should have been Indexes in a CA at the end of 2020 for CSM, Tau, Genestealers, IG and Eldar, probably. (Pretty sure I forgot some important factions that also didn't have proper PA rules).
    So far 9th edition Codexes are properly balanced to each other, outliers are fixed fast (compared to never like in 7- editions). And factions that got their PA at the end of 8th are also on par.

    12/9-21 AdMech are much stronger than Necrons and have been for 4 months, Drukhari have been much stronger than Necrons for 6 months. Releasing indexes would only slow things down, besides, it's not datasheets that are making these factions bad. Chapter Approved should have included secondaries for every faction, secondaries in codexes is dumb and unfair, I don't care whether I play the faction that gets them first, in the middle or last, these sorts of things shouldn't be released in a staggered manner, perhaps you agree and this is what you meant by an index, but to me index just means datasheets and psychic powers, not relics, objectives or crusade content.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/12 09:30:04


    Post by: H.B.M.C.


     kodos wrote:
    it is interesting how most suggestions get into the change of the core rules instead of the army books, were the core is not the problem
    There are plenty of problems with the core rules. The morale system is a joke. The terrain rules are needlessly convoluted. Vehicles and Monsters suffer horribly from the core rules that define how tough (or not tough) they are.

    I agree that the Codices are where the majority of 40k's problems stem (and have always stemmed), but there are issues with the core rules that cannot be so easily dismissed.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/12 09:36:57


    Post by: kodos


    of course there are issues with the core, but for the main reason that the core rules changes want to solve problems from the Codices, but as soon as new books are released there are solutions to problems that are not there any more while new problems come up that are going to be solved with a new core

    hence the new core rules try to solve the CP problem of 8th Edition, while not solving the problems coming with 9th Edition Army rules


    Like 7th had some problems in the core that are solved easily (looking at the changes for 30k) in comparison to the problems the Codices came up with (like adding models worth 2000 points for free upon the existing 2000 points to play against an army with 1500 points worth of models)


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/12 09:55:39


    Post by: Tyel


     Blackie wrote:

    Honestly I don't see any significant difference about bloat or complexity if you play pre-PA 8th or 9th. In fact 9th codex removed most of the broken combos from 8th, which means the game is way more friendly oriented now.


    I think it depends on faction.

    Ad Mech are complicated. Its obviously not impossible to learn, but as Winter's video suggests there's lots of different elements that are not necessarily intuitive if you don't know a lot of about 40k. (I.E. "what's a Skitarii?")

    By contrast I'd say Dark Eldar for example are relatively simple. Do you know what Power From Pain and Blade Artists does? Okay the bulk of your army gets this. These guys also get drugs (slightly odd perhaps, but since you can establish this all before starting the game its reasonably straight forward). There are things that build on this, but you don't need to know them unless you are using them.

    Early 8th had major problems - primarily turn 1 deep strike, completely open soup and no rule of 3. But assuming you didn't play in the Thunderdome, most people didn't build super-death lists on this basis (or at least didn't have them good to go on day one). By contrast in 7th I felt whole factions could not compete with others unless they put their arms behind their backs.

    ===

    Its a different topic - but one of things I picked up from Winters video was the idea of "going back" to the old scenarios. To my mind 9th does risk getting old because every scenario is kind of just variation on a theme. But equally, I feel the "nothing matters until the last turn" was awful - for both competitive and casual players. It just encouraged "nuke everyone down" lists. which leads on to:

    ccs wrote:
    Not sure how you expect GW to solve that one. The dance of bringing/not bringing of AT weapons vs bringing/not bringing vehicles to a game has been going on longer than 40ks existed.
    It's just answering the fundamental questions of "What's the other guy likely to bring? How can I take advantage of that?"


    The answer is just to tweak the numbers. The issue with 40k is we seem to be at "attack the wrong thing? You should do 20% of your points in damage. The average thing? 40%? The right thing? 100%." I think the reason GW does this is two fold.
    1. People like killing stuff. See the Scotsman's observation that players hate having their army bounce on "tough" opponents. (I know I do.)
    2. The game speeds up as units die. If you expected both players to end up with 75% of their army left on turn 5, all moving, shooting etc, the game is going to take far longer than when one or both players are usually on fumes or dead by turn 5.

    But nothing stops GW designing a game such that you attack the wrong thing, you expect only a 10% return, the average thing a 20-25% return, and the right thing a 40% return. The game doesn't have to be written so every army is a glasshammer. (I guess you could argue DG/DA Terminators etc, but these seem exceptions rather than the rule.)


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/12 10:21:58


    Post by: techsoldaten


    This same question gets asked, in one form or another, with every new edition, with problems typically falling into similar categories: balance, complexity of the rules, time to complete a game, fidelity to the background, cost of models, publishing schedule, level of attention to problems by the game developer, etc.

    There tends to be an arc to these kinds of conversations. The solutions called for typically start with radical change, followed by extensive wish lists, typically becoming more faction focused over time. Eventually, the cycle stops and starts again after a little time has passed.

    While I have sympathy for the long suffering wargamer looking for something 'better,' that might be more of an ideal than a goal that can be achieved in the real world. There are simply too many layers being crammed into one game for each edition to remain stable more than a few years. New models, fluff, FAQs, the spread of net-optimized lists, tournaments, local / global meta, players aging out / starting up with the game, GW's need to actually sell stuff, etc all have an impact on the fuzzy concept of 'better.' There's not going to be a completely satisfying system, nor is there going to be incremental improvement over what currently exists.

    The game will carry on with a hard reset in each new edition; as players, we discover the flaws through a series of games and use them until the next reset. I've never heard a convincing argument there's a way, as players, to alter that paradigm.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/12 10:25:38


    Post by: kodos


    true to that

    yet what is new with 9th, is that we see wish-listing and talking about what 10th should bring, after the first year of the game

    usually this starts with the half-time reset when GW shifts the new releases to another theme or the codex creep gets bad

    the last time we have seen such discussions early on was with 6th


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/12 10:31:10


    Post by: lord_blackfang


    9th was a tiny step back in the right direction after 12 years of constantly dumbing the game down, but at this point 40k is beyond salvation. The sculpts themselves are forcing it into being an overgunned, overkilly exercise in pelting each other with dice and hundreds of pages of convoluted (NOT complex) special rules can't hide this innate shallowness. The last time 40k was a game worth playing was when you had to legitimately consider standing still to double tap your small arms.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/12 11:16:18


    Post by: dreadblade


    I'd prefer CPs and stratagems to be replaced by special rules for units too. What stratagems gives you though is abilities that can be used occasionally. I'm not sure how that would be handled if they were replaced.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/12 11:19:48


    Post by: Tyel


     kodos wrote:
    true to that

    yet what is new with 9th, is that we see wish-listing and talking about what 10th should bring, after the first year of the game

    usually this starts with the half-time reset when GW shifts the new releases to another theme or the codex creep gets bad

    the last time we have seen such discussions early on was with 6th


    I think the issue is that you've got a body of people who didn't like the jump from 7th to 8th, and are going to carry on those battles.

    "Move to alternate activations and get rid of stratagems" is not really a 9th edition issue.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/12 11:33:19


    Post by: Sgt. Cortez


     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    Sgt. Cortez wrote:
    There should have been Indexes in a CA at the end of 2020 for CSM, Tau, Genestealers, IG and Eldar, probably.
    Why? What would that have achieved except giving CSM 5 books in two editions (Index 1, Codex 1, Codex 2, Index 2, Codex 3)?

    The Indices were necessary in 8th because 8th invalidated all previous rules in much the same way as 3rd Ed invalidated all previous rules. Indices are not the answer.


    A simple proper FAQ like Space Wolves got for their extreme long wait of 2 months would have been okay to give CSM two wounds, too, but it's GW we're talking about .


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/12 11:53:13


    Post by: Ordana


     Sim-Life wrote:
     Blackie wrote:


    What???? These days we probably have the most balanced edition of 40k ever, both internal and external. Probably you are biased as I assume you play tau, a race that is currently suffering (and it doesn't have a 9th edition codex yet, don't forget that) but was utterly OP in 7th.


    - just because you keep saying its balanced doesn't make it so.
    - saying its the most balanced 40k ever is like saying its the most balanced endgame jenga tower ever. Its still unbalanced, just in different ways
    -personal attacks don't strengthen your argument

    Also on-topic:
    For me, 40k peaked at pre-PA 8th. It was somewhat simple enough to sit down and have a good time. You could sit down, throw together a list and throw dice and have a laugh with friends. Now it feels like 80% of the game is in rule books, tied up in super-doctrines, strats, faction abilities and secondary objectives.
    For me 8th before the Marine 2.0 codex dropped was great and probably the best 40k has been since I started playing during 3e edition.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/12 14:44:37


    Post by: Rhia_Stadtfeld


    I didn't actually realise the years and dates of editions till I looked last night, I /actually/ last probably played in about 04, but entered the hobby in around 97. (I feel old af now)

    With that in mind, given the amount of information on editions in here, how would you guys recommend I get back in?

    Play smaller scale games? Play what I know? Or just step back out again, It sounds as though unless you've been with it since the release of 9th, forget about it, as by the time I've got a handle on it we'll be in 10th


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/12 15:13:45


    Post by: vict0988


     Rhia_Stadtfeld wrote:
    I didn't actually realise the years and dates of editions till I looked last night, I /actually/ last probably played in about 04, but entered the hobby in around 97. (I feel old af now)

    With that in mind, given the amount of information on editions in here, how would you guys recommend I get back in?

    Play smaller scale games? Play what I know? Or just step back out again, It sounds as though unless you've been with it since the release of 9th, forget about it, as by the time I've got a handle on it we'll be in 10th

    Read the core rules and get a veteran who knows your army to build a list for you to play one 500 point game with you, then read the matched play rules, build a 1k list and learn the rules for the units and Stratagems you can use and play 3 1000 point games and then move on to 2000 point games. The difficult step is learning the rules for every other faction so you can play against people that like to gotcha, if you make it clear that you're new and you would like a primer on what your opponent's army can do and would like warning before they pull gotchas on you then 9th is easier to get into than most editions.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/12 16:07:07


    Post by: Sgt. Cortez


     Rhia_Stadtfeld wrote:
    I didn't actually realise the years and dates of editions till I looked last night, I /actually/ last probably played in about 04, but entered the hobby in around 97. (I feel old af now)

    With that in mind, given the amount of information on editions in here, how would you guys recommend I get back in?

    Play smaller scale games? Play what I know? Or just step back out again, It sounds as though unless you've been with it since the release of 9th, forget about it, as by the time I've got a handle on it we'll be in 10th


    Just do a little crusade campaign, starting at 25PL. That way you have a small roster to care about and can build up step by step. You also play the best way 40K always worked, irrespective of any edition, and that is narrative.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/12 16:19:55


    Post by: Rhia_Stadtfeld


    I'm not gonna quote you both as that'd make a reply far too long, this may seem an incredibly stupid question but what do you mean when you say "narrative play"?

    As you can probably tell by my post count, as far as actually using a forum and trying to network a little and talk more in the community I'm very new here / in general. It always used to be quite a solitary hobby for me with exception of 6 or so friends

    Thanks for your insight though, I was leaning towards a 500 pt patrol style start point after attempting to make a few 2k lists


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/12 16:35:20


    Post by: Sim-Life


     Rhia_Stadtfeld wrote:
    I'm not gonna quote you both as that'd make a reply far too long, this may seem an incredibly stupid question but what do you mean when you say "narrative play"?

    As you can probably tell by my post count, as far as actually using a forum and trying to network a little and talk more in the community I'm very new here / in general. It always used to be quite a solitary hobby for me with exception of 6 or so friends

    Thanks for your insight though, I was leaning towards a 500 pt patrol style start point after attempting to make a few 2k lists


    Firstly, don't play Crusade, despite what SOME people on here may say. It dumps a load of extra gak and book keeping on the game that it doesn't need for beginners,

    Narritive means "playing for story". Like enacting desperate last stands or sieges and such. It works in 40k because it lets you play in such a way that the game isn't defined by "winner" or "loser". For example in 8th me and my friends enacted the last stage of the Devestation of Baal with a combined force of Blood Angels and Ultramarines lead by Guilliman fighting off my nids (because I have loads of them) using a seige scenario from the 8th Ed BRB. They scored points by killing whole units, I scored by having units past a certain point on the board. It was unbalanced as hell (especially as 8th Ed Guilliman was there) but it wasn't supposed to be balanced and I went in knowing that, so a good time was had by all as we enacted a bit of 40k history on the table.

    Honestly though, I would say start with 500pts Matched over Crusade. You can start with simple units using basic rules and work your way up to a Crusade campaign without having to worry about extra things like Agendas or XP or keeping track of who levelled where.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/12 18:51:04


    Post by: lord_blackfang


    In short, narrative play is any scenario that isn't a perfectly symmetrical tournament game.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/12 19:25:52


    Post by: jeff white


     Rhia_Stadtfeld wrote:
    I didn't actually realise the years and dates of editions till I looked last night, I /actually/ last probably played in about 04, but entered the hobby in around 97. (I feel old af now)

    With that in mind, given the amount of information on editions in here, how would you guys recommend I get back in?

    Play smaller scale games? Play what I know? Or just step back out again, It sounds as though unless you've been with it since the release of 9th, forget about it, as by the time I've got a handle on it we'll be in 10th


    My suggestion here would be that this would make a great thread of its own.. lots of people might benefit from such a thread. You will get more feedback dedicated to this question… just a thought.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/12 23:05:50


    Post by: H.B.M.C.


     Sim-Life wrote:
    Firstly, don't play Crusade...
    Or, better, play whatever you want.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/12 23:57:16


    Post by: Rhia_Stadtfeld


    I've knocked out this thread :-

    https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/800871.page

    For people with advice for newbs or that want to chip in on when and why the left the hobby or rejoined it as I don't want to overly derail this thread.

    Thanks though for those who did reply here <3


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/13 04:30:57


    Post by: aphyon


    From my own personal experience that is completely anecdotal.

    Almost every player i have met that has started in 8th edition and has never experienced anything prior, who has taken a dive into playing 5th edition with us have all basically sad the same thing- when we show them the old lore based rules (such as last night when i broke out the 3rd ed chapter approved with the schaffers last chancers entry and armored company list)
    the response is usually things like

    "this stuff is great!"
    "why did GW take this away"
    "why did they remove these options"
    "this looks like it would be fun to play"
    "this makes way more sense"


    Understandably these players are all not of the tournament mindset that 9th edition is trying to cater to. they like the minis, hobby, the universe or multiple related things about the 40K setting. they also want to use models they like, think look cool etc... without chasing the meta and being forced to only play what works best in the competitive setting that is 9th.

    Is that peak? i don't really know, what i have noticed is that even some of our most ardent GW supporters are so irritated with GWs behavior towards the game and the fan base they are all pretty much walking away from the game either to play older editions or entirely different games like infinity, classic battletech, star wars legion etc...


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/13 08:12:20


    Post by: Radium


    Peak 40k was definitely 4th/5th (before GK and Necrons broke the game). 9th does a lot of things well, and is reasonably functional as a game. However, I feel there are a number of core problems with the game right now:

  • The game feels schizofrenic. The core rules are very streamlined (I would say too much so - I still think it's weird that lasguns can hurt a land raider for example), but then they added incredibly granular rules bloat in the various codices, which doesn't mesh with the core rules very well. I feel the core rules need a bit more detail (bring back the old to-wound table, stacking modifiers - at least stack moving + heavy with terrain/opponent's rules, USRs, better terrain rules, etc), and army rules need to be toned down.

  • The missions and secondaries all feel very samey. While this makes the game more 'balanced', it also makes it a bit boring after a couple of games. I'd prefer more variety in the core missions, and less focus on secondaries, or reduced bookkeeping for secondaries.

  • All the numbers are too big. Stat inflation is a massive problem: weapons do too much damage, basic marines have too many attacks, movement speed is too high, the table is too small. I feel the basic movement speed (i.e.: a guardsman) should be 4", so there can be a better spread of movement stats. Reduce the range on guns (18" pistols is bananas), and reduce all damage/attack stats as necessary to curb the insane lethality of the game.

  • The game resembles a board game more than a war game right now. Stratagems, command points, auras: none of this 'feels' right for 40k. I think having some stratagems could be OK, but moving essential abilities to stratagems, creating gotcha stratagems, and having armies essentially depend on stratagems moves a lot of the game to the planning phase of the game, instead of the actual playing phase of the game. I'd much prefer clever maneuvering and gameplay to account for more. Some command rerolls/insane bravery stratagems is great to mitigate some poor rolls, or have some more control over the game. Everything else should go IMHO, or be rolled back into unit rules.


  • Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/13 08:33:42


    Post by: AnomanderRake


     H.B.M.C. wrote:
     Sim-Life wrote:
    Firstly, don't play Crusade...
    Or, better, play whatever you want.


    Perhaps "Crusade isn't a great choice for a new player, as it adds an extra layer of stuff to keep track of on top of just trying to understand the game" conveys the sentiment better?


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/13 10:39:30


    Post by: Blackie


    Radium wrote:

    The missions and secondaries all feel very samey. While this makes the game more 'balanced', it also makes it a bit boring after a couple of games. I'd prefer more variety in the core missions, and less focus on secondaries, or reduced bookkeeping for secondaries.


    A legit opinion, but compared to 4th or 5th? Back then there were only three missions to play and one (Kill Points) was extremely harsh on some armies, to the point that in friendly games most people purposefully avoided that mission and the concept of Kill Points is the most boring concept possible. It was much more elegant and fair the WHFB solution, to count the points the costed killed units or half killed units, instead of Kill Points, where a 30ppm unit counts 1KP exactly like a 500 points one, but we didn't get that in 40k.

    There's way more variety in the missions now than in older editions, and secondaries contribute to add even more variety.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     AnomanderRake wrote:
     H.B.M.C. wrote:
     Sim-Life wrote:
    Firstly, don't play Crusade...
    Or, better, play whatever you want.


    Perhaps "Crusade isn't a great choice for a new player, as it adds an extra layer of stuff to keep track of on top of just trying to understand the game" conveys the sentiment better?


    I second this, Crusade is not easy to handle for someone that is trying to learn the game. I'd suggest to play matched 1000 points if the goal is to learn the game mechanics. Smaller formats only if players don't have enough models, as at 1000 points it feels like a proper 40k experience while 500 points is closer to Kill Team.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/13 10:58:17


    Post by: Sim-Life


     Blackie wrote:


    I second this, Crusade is not easy to handle for someone that is trying to learn the game. I'd suggest to play matched 1000 points if the goal is to learn the game mechanics. Smaller formats only if players don't have enough models, as at 1000 points it feels like a proper 40k experience while 500 points is closer to Kill Team.


    Disagree. Its easier to learn a game in small increments. Unless you're playing with just unit and weapon statlines and no unit or faction special rules 1000pts will have too many things to keep track of. 500pts gives you enough room to learn the fundamentals without overwhelming people. If you're worried about the "proper 40k experience" whatever that is then why not just go straight to 2000pts?


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/13 11:06:29


    Post by: Jidmah


     H.B.M.C. wrote:
     Sim-Life wrote:
    Firstly, don't play Crusade...
    Or, better, play whatever you want.


    The core problem of many people here seems to be that there are multiple, completely different ways to play and that people cannot play the way they want because of the group of players around them.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     Sim-Life wrote:
    Disagree. Its easier to learn a game in small increments. Unless you're playing with just unit and weapon statlines and no unit or faction special rules 1000pts will have too many things to keep track of. 500pts gives you enough room to learn the fundamentals without overwhelming people. If you're worried about the "proper 40k experience" whatever that is then why not just go straight to 2000pts?


    Because 2000 points takes too long if one player doesn't know what's going on.

    I have taught dozens of players how to play, and "baby's first game" is a waste of both your and the new player's time. Most people interested in learning 40k aren't dumb kids who don't know anything, but people who have played much more complex TCG, video games, board games or RPGs before. They can handle a psyker with a buff spell and units with more than one special weapon easily.

    If you don't trust them to cope with more than bolter marines and a power sword captain, you are boring them and might even lose them for the hobby. If you give them a proper army made of straight forward units with one or two more complex ones sprinkled in and you are much more likely to not only teach them the game, but also keep them interested.
    Sure, they won't be using those things in the most optimal way, but you are trying to teach them how to play. Teaching them how to win comes afterwards.

    That said, I wouldn't use matched play at all. I just slap two objectives in the middle and have each count 5VP during the command phase. Depending on the player, stratagems can be limited to just re-rolls or just generic ones and I never use army or detachment rules.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/13 11:26:25


    Post by: Radium


     Blackie wrote:


    A legit opinion, but compared to 4th or 5th? Back then there were only three missions to play and one (Kill Points) was extremely harsh on some armies, to the point that in friendly games most people purposefully avoided that mission and the concept of Kill Points is the most boring concept possible. It was much more elegant and fair the WHFB solution, to count the points the costed killed units or half killed units, instead of Kill Points, where a 30ppm unit counts 1KP exactly like a 500 points one, but we didn't get that in 40k.

    There's way more variety in the missions now than in older editions, and secondaries contribute to add even more variety.


    KPs came to be in 5th. In 4th, you definitely counted the actual points value of the units (including half value for units under half strength, wounded characters, and damaged vehicles).

    I'm not saying 4th or 5th had the best variety in missions or anything, and there absolutely is merit to the current system that separates the deployment map from the actual mission, but 4th had good mission variety (if you played the alpha/beta/omega versions as well). Secondaries are a great concept, but the current ones feel gamey to me, and I'd much rather have simplified secondaries, and preferable just 'generic' ones per mission, instead of choosing them yourself (which may be an unpopular opinion, but it could help create a strong sense of focus for the mission by having the primary and secondary objectives synergise rather than just be completely separate checkboxes to keep in mind).


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/13 11:36:35


    Post by: vict0988


    Radium wrote:
     Blackie wrote:


    A legit opinion, but compared to 4th or 5th? Back then there were only three missions to play and one (Kill Points) was extremely harsh on some armies, to the point that in friendly games most people purposefully avoided that mission and the concept of Kill Points is the most boring concept possible. It was much more elegant and fair the WHFB solution, to count the points the costed killed units or half killed units, instead of Kill Points, where a 30ppm unit counts 1KP exactly like a 500 points one, but we didn't get that in 40k.

    There's way more variety in the missions now than in older editions, and secondaries contribute to add even more variety.


    KPs came to be in 5th. In 4th, you definitely counted the actual points value of the units (including half value for units under half strength, wounded characters, and damaged vehicles).

    I'm not saying 4th or 5th had the best variety in missions or anything, and there absolutely is merit to the current system that separates the deployment map from the actual mission, but 4th had good mission variety (if you played the alpha/beta/omega versions as well). Secondaries are a great concept, but the current ones feel gamey to me, and I'd much rather have simplified secondaries, and preferable just 'generic' ones per mission, instead of choosing them yourself (which may be an unpopular opinion, but it could help create a strong sense of focus for the mission by having the primary and secondary objectives synergise rather than just be completely separate checkboxes to keep in mind).

    Secondaries provide a way to equally apply an anti-spam filter across missions, but there also needs to be alternatives in case your opponent is not spamming. Losing every game on mission 4 and winning every game on mission 2 when you are playing a vehicle-heavy army is BS, it means too much of the outcome of the game is decided without player choice and before the first turn has begun.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/13 11:37:53


    Post by: kirotheavenger


    I truly hate secondaries. I just want to play a game and it's an unholy amount of faff. They present you with three options; learn the secondaries and which ones are best in a given matchup, spend 15 minutes before a game reading and choosing them, or don't think about it and just pick whatever.
    The first is a lot of information to ingrain, totally impractical for a casual player. The second is a huge waste of time for everyone involved. The third is doomed to failure as secondaries are fully half the game, throwing away good choices can really hurt you.

    I much prefer Open War. Simple, you draw the cards and you play the mission. But still varied and interesting.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/13 11:39:53


    Post by: vict0988


     kirotheavenger wrote:
    I truly hate secondaries. I just want to play a game and it's an unholy amount of faff. They present you with three options; learn the secondaries and which ones are best in a given matchup, spend 15 minutes before a game reading and chosing them, or pick semi-randomly.
    The first is a lot of information to ingrain, totally impractical for a casual player. The second is a huge waste of time for everyone involved. The third is doomed to failure as secondaries are fully half the game

    I much prefer Open War. Simple, you draw the cards and you play the mission. But still varied and interesting.

    How is Open War preferable to picking semi-randomly? I guess it forces your opponent down to your level. Open War is not fair, you might as well give each player 3D6 VP at the end of the game and stop using secondaries.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/13 11:42:55


    Post by: kirotheavenger


    That's certainly an extreme take, so extreme as to be irrelevant I dare say.
    I've not found any Open War objectives to be too one sided. Sometimes the Twists can be a little too onesided, at least with the 8th deck. Not sure if the 9th deck has resolved that. But if you don't want the Twists, don't use them. Content yourself with just Mission and Deployment.

    Yes it can be a bit random, but I like to use aStar Wars Legion inspired method of drawing cards, which gives both players some agency.
    Although most opponents would rather not bother and prefer to just draw.

    I've played in multiple tournaments that used Open War, and a lot of people feel like the simplicity creates more balance. A lot of these groups are casual players that have to resort to choosing secondaries by the third method and are basically out of the game before it starts.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/13 11:45:35


    Post by: the_scotsman


    Primarily, the main problem I have at this point is compared to other games I play, 40k feels incredibly un-interactive and incredibly just drop-dead instant deadly, and I think that impression is more based on 'a large fraction of your units basically only get to TRY to do one single thing before they die' than any actual 'how long does your army last in terms of turn-count.'

    Because I've been playing the new kill team, and that game only lasts 4 turns maximum, and AOS which is also generally decided on or around turn 4. But because of the alternating play mechanics in both games, you feel like you're continuously playing, continuously participating rather than just 'ok, my turn to remove models and die now.' like 40k tends to create.

    I also dont really know that the missions help out that much. I just recently played a game where the dice basically broke incredibly wrong for me on turn 2 (wych cult list where literally 100% of my close combat units on turn 2 failed to get in to combat rolling just nothing but 2s through 5s on their charge rolls) and I went super hard into trying to maximise scoring, pulled up a respectable lead of 54pts to 35pts at the end of turn 3, but then I was tabled top of turn 4, and turn 4 and turn 5 my opponent was just able to easily rack up 30 points by sitting his 3 remaining units on objectives and doing actions.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/13 11:56:18


    Post by: Gregor Samsa


     the_scotsman wrote:
    Primarily, the main problem I have at this point is compared to other games I play, 40k feels incredibly un-interactive and incredibly just drop-dead instant deadly, and I think that impression is more based on 'a large fraction of your units basically only get to TRY to do one single thing before they die' than any actual 'how long does your army last in terms of turn-count.'

    Because I've been playing the new kill team, and that game only lasts 4 turns maximum, and AOS which is also generally decided on or around turn 4. But because of the alternating play mechanics in both games, you feel like you're continuously playing, continuously participating rather than just 'ok, my turn to remove models and die now.' like 40k tends to create.

    I also dont really know that the missions help out that much. I just recently played a game where the dice basically broke incredibly wrong for me on turn 2 (wych cult list where literally 100% of my close combat units on turn 2 failed to get in to combat rolling just nothing but 2s through 5s on their charge rolls) and I went super hard into trying to maximise scoring, pulled up a respectable lead of 54pts to 35pts at the end of turn 3, but then I was tabled top of turn 4, and turn 4 and turn 5 my opponent was just able to easily rack up 30 points by sitting his 3 remaining units on objectives and doing actions.


    Strongly agree here.

    Almost every 40k game I play comes down to a weird presentation of "tactical choice". Instead of normal, tried and true wargame strategy such as unit facing, suppression and morale, command and control mechanics, 40k is bogged down in strange cryptic decision making to pass as "strategy".

    For example, the entire "units are obscured unless a base of the unit touches the footprint of the obscuring terrain feature in which case they are not obscured". Its things like that which mean we spend more time fiddling around with game semantics than actual tabletop gaming. How are rules like that better than classic wargame choices such as "do a full move and shoot once, move half range and shoot twice" or "roll a leadership test to determine if the unit completes orders as requested".

    The further 40k strays from classic wargame design principles created by, frankly, better games designers, it unsurprisingly gets worse.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/13 12:05:16


    Post by: aphyon


    A legit opinion, but compared to 4th or 5th? Back then there were only three missions to play and one (Kill Points) was extremely harsh on some armies,


    That is not the mission options i remember
    kill points or unit kill value prior to that were a thing but there was also-
    .1- objective in each players deployment zone to defend
    .2-d3+2 objectives to take and hold
    .3-center objective(king of the hill)
    .4-move-able center objective(up to 6" per player turn)
    .5-table quarters (the quarter opposite was worth 2 VP and each of the others to the sides were worth 1(your own was worth zero to you)
    .6-over-run/breakout-playing from end to end VP for getting units into or keeping them out of the defenders back 24" zone (defender starts at the halfway point on the table).

    So that's 7 mission options of which 6 of them force players to move off of just gun-line style play especially when adequate terrain is on the table that blocks LOS.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/13 12:11:15


    Post by: Blackie


     Sim-Life wrote:
     Blackie wrote:


    I second this, Crusade is not easy to handle for someone that is trying to learn the game. I'd suggest to play matched 1000 points if the goal is to learn the game mechanics. Smaller formats only if players don't have enough models, as at 1000 points it feels like a proper 40k experience while 500 points is closer to Kill Team.


    Disagree. Its easier to learn a game in small increments. Unless you're playing with just unit and weapon statlines and no unit or faction special rules 1000pts will have too many things to keep track of. 500pts gives you enough room to learn the fundamentals without overwhelming people. If you're worried about the "proper 40k experience" whatever that is then why not just go straight to 2000pts?


    Because 2000 points game take forever for people trying to learn the rules who are constanly double check books. I don't think there are too many things to keep track of at 1000 points, not at all. IMHO if you play 500 points for a while, then go up to 1000 and so on you're only wasting time. Game isn't that difficult, 2-3 matches at 1000 points and you'll learn all the basic stuff.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/13 12:45:09


    Post by: vict0988


    Spoiler:
    1st Place

    Anthony Vanella - Goonhammer Open



    ++ Patrol Detachment 0CP (Aeldari - Drukhari) [35 PL, 620pts] ++

    + Configuration +

    Detachment Command Cost

    Obsession
    . *Custom Coven*: Dark Technomancers (All-Consuming)

    + HQ +

    Drazhar [8 PL, 145pts]: Hatred Eternal, Warlord

    + Troops +

    Wracks [3 PL, 45pts]
    . Acothyst: Electrocorrosive Whip
    . 4x Wracks: 4x Wrack Blade

    + Heavy Support +

    Cronos [12 PL, 215pts]
    . Cronos: Spirit Probe
    . Cronos
    . Cronos

    Cronos [12 PL, 215pts]
    . Cronos: Spirit Probe
    . Cronos
    . Cronos

    ++ Patrol Detachment 0CP (Aeldari - Drukhari) [23 PL, 460pts, 9CP] ++

    + Configuration +

    Battle Size [12CP]: 3. Strike Force (101-200 Total PL / 1001-2000 Points)

    Detachment Command Cost

    Obsession: Cult of Strife: The Spectacle of Murder (Restricted)

    Raiding Forces - CP Refund

    + Stratagems +

    Stratagem: Prizes from the Dark City [-1CP]

    + HQ +

    Succubus [4 PL, 75pts, -1CP]: 1 - Adrenalight (Combat Drug), Competitive Edge, Stratagem: Tolerated Ambition, The Triptych Whip
    . Agoniser & Archite Glaive
    . Show Stealer (Strife): Show Stealer

    + Troops +

    Hekatrix Bloodbrides [8 PL, 135pts, -1CP]: 2 - Grave Lotus (Combat Drug)
    . Hekatrix: Agoniser, Morvaines's Agoniser, Splinter Pistol, Stratagem: Hekatrix of the Crucibael
    . 8x Hekatrix Bloodbride: 8x Hekatarii Blade, 8x Plasma Grenades, 8x Splinter Pistol
    . Hekatrix Bloodbride w/ Shardnet and Impaler: Shardnet and Impaler

    + Elites +

    Incubi [4 PL, 80pts]
    . 4x Incubi: 4x Klaive
    . Klaivex: Klaive

    + Fast Attack +

    Hellions [7 PL, 170pts]: 1 - Adrenalight (Combat Drug)
    . Helliarch: Hellglaive
    . 9x Hellion: 9x Hellglaive, 9x Splinter Pods

    ++ Patrol Detachment 0CP (Aeldari - Drukhari) [55 PL, 916pts, -1CP] ++

    + Configuration +

    Detachment Command Cost

    Obsession: Kabal of the Black Heart: Thirst for Power

    Raiding Forces - CP Refund

    + No Force Org Slot +

    Court of the Archon [10 PL, 136pts]
    . Sslyth
    . Sslyth
    . Sslyth
    . Sslyth
    . Ur-Ghul
    . Ur-Ghul
    . Ur-Ghul
    . Ur-Ghul

    + HQ +

    Archon [5 PL, 85pts, -1CP]: Ancient Evil, Huskblade, Overlord, Splinter Pistol, Stratagem: Tolerated Ambition, The Djin Blade
    . Splintered Genius (Black Heart): Splintered Genius

    + Troops +

    Kabalite Trueborn [8 PL, 140pts]
    . 6x Kabalite Trueborn: 6x Splinter Rifle
    . Kabalite Trueborn w/ Heavy Weapon: Dark Lance
    . Kabalite Trueborn w/ Special Weapon: Blaster
    . Kabalite Trueborn w/ Special Weapon: Blaster
    . Trueborn Sybarite: Phantasm Grenade Launcher, Splinter Rifle

    + Elites +

    Incubi [4 PL, 80pts]
    . 4x Incubi: 4x Klaive
    . Klaivex: Klaive

    Incubi [4 PL, 80pts]
    . 4x Incubi: 4x Klaive
    . Klaivex: Klaive

    + Dedicated Transport +

    Raider [6 PL, 95pts]: Dark Lance, Kabal

    Raider [6 PL, 100pts]: Dark Lance, Grisly Trophies, Kabal

    Raider [6 PL, 100pts]: Dark Lance, Grisly Trophies, Kabal

    Raider [6 PL, 100pts]: Dark Lance, Grisly Trophies, Kabal

    ++ Total: [113 PL, 1,996pts, 8CP] ++


    vs

    Spoiler:
    2nd Place

    Adrian Phillips - Goonhammer Open



    ++ Battalion Detachment 0CP (Imperium - Adeptus Mechanicus) [100 PL, 1,997pts, 7CP] ++

    + Configuration +

    Army of Renown - Skitarii Veteran Cohort

    Battle Size [12CP]: 3. Strike Force (101-200 Total PL / 1001-2000 Points)

    Detachment Command Cost

    Forge World Choice: Forge World: Mars

    + Stratagems +

    Stratagem: Archeotech Specialist [-2CP]: 2x Archeotech Specialist

    Stratagem: Artefactotum [-1CP]: Artefactotum

    Stratagem: Host of the Intermediary [-1CP]: Host of the Intermediary

    Stratagem: Mechanicus Locum [-1CP]: Mechanicus Locum

    + HQ +

    Skitarii Marshal [3 PL, 45pts]: Control Stave, Radium Serpenta, Relic (Skitarii Veteran Cohort): Cantic Thrallnet, Warlord, Warlord Trait (Skitarii Veteran Cohort): Calculate Without Diversion

    Skitarii Marshal [3 PL, 45pts]: Control Stave, Mechanicus Locum, Radium Serpenta, Relic: Exemplar's Eternity, Warlord Trait (Codex 4): Archived Engagements

    Tech-Priest Manipulus [6 PL, 105pts]: Logi, Magnarail lance, Manipulus Mechadendrites, Omnissian Staff, Relic: Raiment of the Technomartyr

    + Troops +

    Skitarii Rangers [9 PL, 215pts]: Enhanced Data-Tether, Omnispex
    . Ranger Alpha: Galvanic Rifle, Host of the Intermediary, Power sword, Warlord Trait (Codex 5): Firepoint Telemetry Cache
    . 19x Skitarii Ranger: 19x Galvanic Rifle

    Skitarii Rangers [3 PL, 50pts]
    . Ranger Alpha: Galvanic Rifle
    . 4x Skitarii Ranger: 4x Galvanic Rifle

    Skitarii Rangers [3 PL, 50pts]
    . Ranger Alpha: Galvanic Rifle
    . 4x Skitarii Ranger: 4x Galvanic Rifle

    Skitarii Rangers [3 PL, 50pts]
    . Ranger Alpha: Galvanic Rifle
    . 4x Skitarii Ranger: 4x Galvanic Rifle

    Skitarii Vanguards [9 PL, 210pts]: Enhanced Data-Tether, Omnispex
    . 19x Skitarii Vanguard: 19x Radium Carbine
    . Vanguard Alpha: Radium Carbine

    Skitarii Vanguards [3 PL, 50pts]
    . 4x Skitarii Vanguard: 4x Radium Carbine
    . Vanguard Alpha: Radium Carbine

    + Elites +

    Sicarian Infiltrators [4 PL, 85pts]
    . Infiltrator Princeps (Flechette/Taser): Flechette Blaster, Taser Goad
    . 4x Sicarian Infiltrator (Flechette/Taser): 4x Flechette Blaster, 4x Taser Goad

    Sicarian Infiltrators [4 PL, 85pts]
    . Infiltrator Princeps (Flechette/Taser): Flechette Blaster, Taser Goad
    . 4x Sicarian Infiltrator (Flechette/Taser): 4x Flechette Blaster, 4x Taser Goad

    Sicarian Infiltrators [8 PL, 136pts]
    . Infiltrator Princeps (Stub/Sword): Power Sword, Stubcarbine
    . 7x Sicarian Infiltrator (Stub/Sword): 7x Power Sword, 7x Stubcarbine

    Sicarian Ruststalkers [8 PL, 153pts]
    . Ruststalker Princeps (Blades): Chordclaw, Transonic Blades
    . 8x Sicarian Ruststalker (Blades): 8x Transonic Blades

    Sicarian Ruststalkers [8 PL, 170pts]
    . Ruststalker Princeps (Blades): Artefactotum, Chordclaw, Relic: Temporcopia, Transonic Blades
    . 9x Sicarian Ruststalker (Blades): 9x Transonic Blades

    + Fast Attack +

    Ironstrider Ballistarii [12 PL, 225pts]
    . Ironstrider Ballistarius: Twin Cognis Lascannon
    . Ironstrider Ballistarius: Twin Cognis Lascannon
    . Ironstrider Ballistarius: Twin Cognis Lascannon

    Pteraxii Sterylizors [8 PL, 190pts]
    . 9x Pteraxii Sterylizor: 9x Phosphor torch, 9x Pteraxii Talons
    . Pteraxii Sterylizor Alpha: Flechette Blaster, Pteraxii Talons, Taser Goad

    Serberys Raiders [6 PL, 133pts]: Enhanced Data-Tether
    . 7x Serberys Raider: 7x Cavalry Sabre, 7x Clawed Limbs, 7x Galvanic Carbine
    . Serberys Raider Alpha: Archeo-revolver, Cavalry Sabre, Clawed Limbs, Galvanic Carbine

    ++ Total: [100 PL, 7CP, 1,997pts] ++


    You don't think it matters whether you play Gloryseeker where the winner is whoever destroys more PL worth of units counting CHARACTERS, VEHICLES and MONSTERS twice? or War of Attrition which is the same, except you don't count CHARACTERS, VEHICLES and MONSTERS twice when one army has 24 PL of non-frontline units of these types and the other has 41 PL of frontline units of these types and another 24 PL of non-frontline units of these types? That's the first objective card I found compared with the most similar objective card I found after drawing a few cards from the pile and the top two armies of the most recently uploaded tournament to 40kstats and it is crystal clear how imbalanced this system is. You might get an advantage playing 21 vs 33 but it's nowhere near the same level of the winner being determined by mission roll off and list-building more than anything else.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/13 13:13:17


    Post by: Slipspace


     the_scotsman wrote:
    Primarily, the main problem I have at this point is compared to other games I play, 40k feels incredibly un-interactive and incredibly just drop-dead instant deadly, and I think that impression is more based on 'a large fraction of your units basically only get to TRY to do one single thing before they die' than any actual 'how long does your army last in terms of turn-count.'


    This is the biggest problem for me too. 9th edition just makes it so easy to remove entire units in one go. Yes, terrain can help to mitigate alpha strikes but the problem remains that units are rarely able to withstand being attacked and those that can often do so only by stacking ridiculous defensive statlines and buffs to the point that regular units can't scratch them. There's not enough incremental advantage in 40k because the only way to interact with your opponent is to kill their stuff. Other wargames have concepts like suppression or some sort of working morale system, or positioning where you can sacrifice damage output on one turn for a superior position in the next. 40k has "you can't see these guys so they're safe" and "these guys are visible so they're dead if my opponent wants them to be".

    I always think back to an interview Gav Thorpe gave about the 3rd edition Wraithlord when he said the designers were worried it might be too powerful because it could kill up to 3 Space Marines in a single close combat phase! The average was a mighty 2 Space Marines. Nowadays it's not uncommon for single units to be able to kill 2 whole units each per round.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/13 13:28:17


    Post by: PenitentJake


     Rhia_Stadtfeld wrote:
    I didn't actually realise the years and dates of editions till I looked last night, I /actually/ last probably played in about 04, but entered the hobby in around 97. (I feel old af now)

    With that in mind, given the amount of information on editions in here, how would you guys recommend I get back in?

    Play smaller scale games? Play what I know? Or just step back out again, It sounds as though unless you've been with it since the release of 9th, forget about it, as by the time I've got a handle on it we'll be in 10th


    Definitely play smaller games. IMHO, the best thing about 9th is the support for games of different sizes; it is a core rule, meaning it applies to all 3 ways to play, but I feel like it is particularly critical to the success of Crusade because the progression system is designed with escalation in mind, and game size support facilitates escalation.

    I would also start with Open play, because all of the stuff people have spent 3 pages (so far) doesn't apply unless you battle forge your army. Many of the folks who don't like 9th are folks who don't have the option of playing open because they can't find people who will play that way. If you have the option, it eliminates almost all CP and Strrat "Problems" (in quotes, because I personally like strats).


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/13 13:32:39


    Post by: kirotheavenger


    Open Play still has strats and stuff, it just gives you the option to forgo those if you want.
    Not to mention that 40k without all those sorts of mechanics is nothing, like just the barest bones of a game.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/13 13:42:26


    Post by: the_scotsman


    aphyon wrote:
    A legit opinion, but compared to 4th or 5th? Back then there were only three missions to play and one (Kill Points) was extremely harsh on some armies,


    That is not the mission options i remember
    kill points or unit kill value prior to that were a thing but there was also-
    .1- objective in each players deployment zone to defend
    .2-d3+2 objectives to take and hold
    .3-center objective(king of the hill)
    .4-move-able center objective(up to 6" per player turn)
    .5-table quarters (the quarter opposite was worth 2 VP and each of the others to the sides were worth 1(your own was worth zero to you)
    .6-over-run/breakout-playing from end to end VP for getting units into or keeping them out of the defenders back 24" zone (defender starts at the halfway point on the table).

    So that's 7 mission options of which 6 of them force players to move off of just gun-line style play especially when adequate terrain is on the table that blocks LOS.


    AKA:

    1 - "The Emperor's Tie" as it was called at the time - basically didnt matter unless one army got obliterated, in which case, congrats bro I guess you 'won by objectives'
    2 -3: The Two Good Ones
    4 - The one that only ever served the purpose of turning a one-sided game into 'technically a tie' because the side that didnt get obliterated didnt obliterate hard enough or have fast enough units that could carry the relic back into the DZ
    5-6 - I do not remember these being missions - maybe the table quarters one, but DEFINITELY one of the missions was ALWAYS just out-and-out "Kill Points by unit destroyed", AKA "just dont play with a mission at all".

    People defending 40k's PUG mission design prior to 8th ed will never not be ABSOLUTELY BONKERS to me. MAELSTROM got played as the de-facto best mission type in 7th. Draw The Cards And Hope You Get The Objectives You Already Control was better than the garbage that was the traditional PUG mission lists.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    Slipspace wrote:
     the_scotsman wrote:
    Primarily, the main problem I have at this point is compared to other games I play, 40k feels incredibly un-interactive and incredibly just drop-dead instant deadly, and I think that impression is more based on 'a large fraction of your units basically only get to TRY to do one single thing before they die' than any actual 'how long does your army last in terms of turn-count.'


    This is the biggest problem for me too. 9th edition just makes it so easy to remove entire units in one go. Yes, terrain can help to mitigate alpha strikes but the problem remains that units are rarely able to withstand being attacked and those that can often do so only by stacking ridiculous defensive statlines and buffs to the point that regular units can't scratch them. There's not enough incremental advantage in 40k because the only way to interact with your opponent is to kill their stuff. Other wargames have concepts like suppression or some sort of working morale system, or positioning where you can sacrifice damage output on one turn for a superior position in the next. 40k has "you can't see these guys so they're safe" and "these guys are visible so they're dead if my opponent wants them to be".

    I always think back to an interview Gav Thorpe gave about the 3rd edition Wraithlord when he said the designers were worried it might be too powerful because it could kill up to 3 Space Marines in a single close combat phase! The average was a mighty 2 Space Marines. Nowadays it's not uncommon for single units to be able to kill 2 whole units each per round.


    On one hand yes....but also, I play games where statistically your stuff is just as likely to die to just as much firepower as it dies in 40k, and it doesnt feel nearly as bad, idk.

    Like lets look for a quick example at age of sigmar.

    I'd say your average unit in age of sigmar PROBABLY dies about as quickly, turnswise, as your unit in 40k, the main two distinctions are generally

    1 - youre more likely to get to act with that unit in the turn that it gets destroyed, because if your opponent combo-wombos up 3 units that will take it down for certain, it's more likely to go:

    -your opponents first unit acts
    -your unit acts (maybe at reduced power)
    -later in the turn your opponents second two units act, finishing off your unit, WHICH DID GET TO AT LEAST DO SOMETHING

    2 - the MASSIVE reduction in range of shooting weaponry generally means youre able to use that basic fact of threat range to hold a unit out of harm's way if you want to preserve it for a later turn

    Heck, I play a game called Battlegroup where armored vehicles essentially have no 'hit points' - your opponent succeeds on a Penetration test against your tank, it's donezo, that's it. One shot one kill, and even infantry units in pretty good cover if they get hosed on by a heavy MG in a good position are just going to get absolutely shredded.

    But again, because it's not purely IGoUGo (in BG you have a limited number of orders, so you generally do not get to move with all your models on your turn) while co-ordinated strategy like in 40k is possible, it's less like you are taking all of your opponent's firepower on the chin just all at once, and you can also choose to couch some of your orders in 'ambush fire' and 'reserve move' orders that let you act during your opponent's next turn.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/13 13:59:26


    Post by: kodos


    I remember 5th for not playing the default missions at all and using a different scoring system (Win/Draw/Los instead of 20:0 difference in objectives used in 7th and 8th)


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/13 14:15:50


    Post by: ccs


     kirotheavenger wrote:
    Open Play still has strats and stuff, it just gives you the option to forgo those if you want.


    Oh you can personally forgo "strats & stuff" in matched play.
    There's nothing mandating that I spend even a single cp on a strat. (my last game used Tallant for Anhilation a grand total of 3 times & nothing else. Not even a re-roll).


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/13 14:27:14


    Post by: kirotheavenger


    Indeed, it's almost like Open Play is totally pointless and exists only so GW can say there's "three ways to play" and make the game sound like it'll suit anyone.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/13 14:56:58


    Post by: Sim-Life


     kirotheavenger wrote:
    Open Play still has strats and stuff, it just gives you the option to forgo those if you want.
    Not to mention that 40k without all those sorts of mechanics is nothing, like just the barest bones of a game.


    Thats why when learning the game its good to ignore all the (many) extraneous rules like strats, secondaries and house rule the terrain rules to something simpler. Better to learn the flow of the fundamentals of the game than chuck everything in all at once and slow everything down as people constantly refer back to and flick around codexes.

    Your first game should be about learning the order of phases, how they all work and the To Wound/Save/FnP/Damage Allocation Stuff. Then build up from there.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/13 14:58:22


    Post by: PenitentJake


     kirotheavenger wrote:
    Indeed, it's almost like Open Play is totally pointless and exists only so GW can say there's "three ways to play" and make the game sound like it'll suit anyone.


    The handful of players on Dakka who swear by Open War would probably disagree.

    While it's true that there is nothing stopping you from battleforging an Open play army, it certainly isn't the default expectation of the system. And without battleforging, you lose access to all your BESPOKE strats, meaning only those in the core book apply.

    Separating deployment maps from mission objectives is another key feature of open play that has a profound impact on how the game plays and feels.

    And of course the biggest difference is the lack of secondaries- it's a total game changer.

    I don't think you're actually giving a whole heck of a lot of credit to Open play; the differences are actually pretty pronounced. It's true, of course, that some open players will select certain elements from other ways to play and add them in, but this does not change the fact that the system is significantly different if you play it out of the book as written. Just because some people choose to battleforge Open armies, this does not mean that GW pulled a fast one and there is no difference between one mode and another.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/13 15:09:25


    Post by: Jidmah


    Playing open war (rather decent game mode using a deck of cards) isn't the same as playing open play (do whatever the hell you like with three rather bad sample missions) though.

    After multiple people have talked about how great playing the 9th edition open war deck is, I've actually tried it myself and found it to be a vastly superior game mode to GT2021 for dadhammer games. This really is what should be in the BRB instead of "Matched Play".


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/13 15:12:56


    Post by: H.B.M.C.


     Jidmah wrote:
    This really is what should be in the BRB instead of "Matched Play".
    But then they wouldn't be able to sell you cards.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/13 15:23:41


    Post by: oni


    9th edition is definitely 'tournament-hammer'. There is no disputing this. But what specifically makes it 'tournament-hammer'? The missions. They're complete garbage. They foster a very specific style of play and reward very specific types of armies. Mike Brandt = The new Matt Ward.

    I think the 9th edition core rules are pretty solid. Some tweaks would be welcome to incorporate the keyword system more rather than have arbitrary limits and caps (e.g. Look Out, Sir and Obscuring terrain being based on wounds quantity). Any rule that needs a limit or a cap is simply bad design (mission objective VP limits are another great example; hence; Mike Brandt = The new Matt Ward).

    To course correct GW needs to stop pandering to the tournament players and get back to the fundamentals that made W40K fun and enjoyable. They can start by taking a step back towards codex simplicity with a heavy handed reduction in stratagems, detachment abilities, relics, warlord traits, etc. Next, is the elimination of book-keeping; we should be putting our time and efforts into playing and not constantly coming to a full stop to log and track win conditions. Again, Mike Brandt = The new Matt Ward.

    Narrative Play should have remained exactly what it was in 8th edition; the inclusion of City Fight, Planetstrike, Stronghold Assault, campaign books, etc. The whole Crusade thing is and continues to be a non-starter. It will never gain traction no matter how hard GW may try. I applaud GW for trying something new but, this one didn't pan out.

    To expound on what WintersSEO says in his video about "accessibility" to 9th edition... He's alluding to what attracts people to W40K and has them make the plunge into it and that is; W40K is first and foremost a 'game of fun' not a 'mental competition'. A 'game of fun' is inviting to all. A 'mental competition' is a lot less attractive and unappealing, hence less accessible. GW has lost sight of W40K being a 'game of fun' as they pander more and more to tournament-hammer.

    On a side note, before everyone dog piles onto me. I may sound like a broken record with the whole Mike Brandt = The new Matt Ward comment... I'm sure Mike is a nice person, maybe even a loving husband and father, but this does not mean he's good at his job. In fact I think he sucks at his job writing the GT pack and missions for GW and it's my opinion that he has had an extremely detrimental impact on W40K similar to, if not worse than, Matt Ward did, back in late 5th and all of 6th edition. You can be a good person with the best of intentions, but still suck at your job.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/13 15:24:09


    Post by: Jidmah


     H.B.M.C. wrote:
     Jidmah wrote:
    This really is what should be in the BRB instead of "Matched Play".
    But then they wouldn't be able to sell you cards.


    To be honest, GT secondaries would have made lot more sense as cards.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/13 15:25:14


    Post by: Daedalus81


    Slipspace wrote:
     the_scotsman wrote:
    Primarily, the main problem I have at this point is compared to other games I play, 40k feels incredibly un-interactive and incredibly just drop-dead instant deadly, and I think that impression is more based on 'a large fraction of your units basically only get to TRY to do one single thing before they die' than any actual 'how long does your army last in terms of turn-count.'


    This is the biggest problem for me too. 9th edition just makes it so easy to remove entire units in one go. Yes, terrain can help to mitigate alpha strikes but the problem remains that units are rarely able to withstand being attacked and those that can often do so only by stacking ridiculous defensive statlines and buffs to the point that regular units can't scratch them. There's not enough incremental advantage in 40k because the only way to interact with your opponent is to kill their stuff. Other wargames have concepts like suppression or some sort of working morale system, or positioning where you can sacrifice damage output on one turn for a superior position in the next. 40k has "you can't see these guys so they're safe" and "these guys are visible so they're dead if my opponent wants them to be".

    I always think back to an interview Gav Thorpe gave about the 3rd edition Wraithlord when he said the designers were worried it might be too powerful because it could kill up to 3 Space Marines in a single close combat phase! The average was a mighty 2 Space Marines. Nowadays it's not uncommon for single units to be able to kill 2 whole units each per round.


    I really feel like people are taking the cause out of 'cause and effect' here.

    If a 200 point unit dies, but it took 400 to 500 points to do it - what's the problem? Everyone acts like it's just a given while ignoring what percentage the opponent wound up putting into killing that unit.

    Imagine 20 Vanguard Vets using Enriched Rounds ( they shouldn't ) to kill 5 marines in cover - they'd kill two marines. The notorious unit that kills anything and costs 200 points managed to kill 40 with an additional 2CP. Maybe 20 Ranger Vets could with Volley? Nope - just 3 instead and another 2 CP.

    Ok maybe 3 Las Chickens shooting a Contemptor. That seems like a plausible scenario. The average damage is 8.9. It must be dead, right? Hold on. The average wounds is 1.77, which means one gets through and second MIGHT get through. What's the real probability? 54%. 225 points has a 54% chance to kill 150. There's also a 12% chance it goes completely unscathed. But people only focus on that coin flip where the outcome was bad for them and never remember the times it survived.

    There's not enough incremental advantage in 40k because the only way to interact with your opponent is to kill their stuff. Other wargames have concepts like suppression or some sort of working morale system, or positioning where you can sacrifice damage output on one turn for a superior position in the next. 40k has "you can't see these guys so they're safe" and "these guys are visible so they're dead if my opponent wants them to be".


    But it does have that. People play like killing is the only thing they do. Holding units back for later matters. Making good decisions on when to move and where to move matters. Having units with superior speed to get an angle on units behind obscuring matters.

    Just pushing models forward and hoping for the best loses you the game. If 40K had *no* depth this would be false, because then you would simply do more damage and win.



    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     oni wrote:
    9th edition is definitely 'tournament-hammer'. There is no disputing this. But what specifically makes it 'tournament-hammer'? The missions. They're complete garbage. They foster a very specific style of play and reward very specific types of armies. Mike Brandt = The new Matt Ward.


    Have you spent any time using the beta Maelstrom rules?




    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/13 15:34:02


    Post by: oni


     Daedalus81 wrote:

     oni wrote:
    9th edition is definitely 'tournament-hammer'. There is no disputing this. But what specifically makes it 'tournament-hammer'? The missions. They're complete garbage. They foster a very specific style of play and reward very specific types of armies. Mike Brandt = The new Matt Ward.


    Have you spent any time using the beta Maelstrom rules?


    I like the 8th edition Chapter Approved missions. They're amazing and still work very well.

    I have not yet tried the new Maelstrom rules from White Dwarf.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/13 15:40:07


    Post by: vict0988


     H.B.M.C. wrote:
     Jidmah wrote:
    This really is what should be in the BRB instead of "Matched Play".
    But then they wouldn't be able to sell you cards.

    If they sold you Open War cards they wouldn't be able to sell you Matched Play cards, the evil capitalists are selling you cards instead of selling you cards.
     oni wrote:
    9th edition is definitely 'tournament-hammer'. There is no disputing this.

    9th edition is casual-hammer, no effort was put into any other part of the game.
    The missions... complete garbage. They foster a very specific style of play and reward very specific types of armies.

    The only type of army that is awful at the 9th missions is a static gunline, something a lot of people are happy about, the rest is just a matter of a lack of balanced pts costs making certain units and strategies inefficient.
    Mike Brandt = The new Matt Ward.

    Mike Brandt does not write rules, he might comment or test them, but he was in fact unhappy with the newest mission and points update and aware of the lack of balance, something he probably would have worked to fix if he wasn't a community organizer and was an author as you think he is.
    ... arbitrary limits and caps (e.g. Look Out, Sir and Obscuring terrain being based on wounds quantity).

    The alternative is having to ask whether each individual model is an independent character and snowflake HQs that get the independent character treatment despite comparable characters from other characters not getting it because the rules were written at different times, no thanks.
    Any rule that needs a limit or a cap is simply bad design

    So unique characters need rules that somehow disincentivise but still allow bringing multiple of them? You are being silly. I would agree on the Tau Empire Commander max 1/detachment, but saying ANY rule that puts a cap or limit on something is bad design is wrong. Stratagems dealing 12 mortal wounds for 2CP is absurd, putting a limit can make the Stratagem useful more often without ever being too strong.
    ...They can start by taking a step back towards codex simplicity... Again, Mike Brandt...

    Okay, where are you getting the idea that Mike Brandt is fuelling bloat? Is this a joke?


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/13 15:55:52


    Post by: Daedalus81


    aphyon wrote:
    A legit opinion, but compared to 4th or 5th? Back then there were only three missions to play and one (Kill Points) was extremely harsh on some armies,


    That is not the mission options i remember
    kill points or unit kill value prior to that were a thing but there was also-
    .1- objective in each players deployment zone to defend
    .2-d3+2 objectives to take and hold
    .3-center objective(king of the hill)
    .4-move-able center objective(up to 6" per player turn)
    .5-table quarters (the quarter opposite was worth 2 VP and each of the others to the sides were worth 1(your own was worth zero to you)
    .6-over-run/breakout-playing from end to end VP for getting units into or keeping them out of the defenders back 24" zone (defender starts at the halfway point on the table).

    So that's 7 mission options of which 6 of them force players to move off of just gun-line style play especially when adequate terrain is on the table that blocks LOS.




    Seize Ground was #2 on your list
    Capture and Control was #1 and it was basically just a mission with two objectives
    Annihilation was kill points

    I don't recall a supplement with those other missions, but literally no one is stopping you from playing missions like that -- aside from the people you play with. And if they don't? It's because something like king of the hill makes for pretty gakky games in reality.

    None of them are very dynamic. Oh you can move the center objective 6"? I wonder which way it will go. The secondaries we have now accomplish way more nuance than any mission in 40k's history.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/13 15:57:59


    Post by: a_typical_hero


    I can only recommend trying out the actual Crusade missions, even in your normal games.

    They add some variety as well.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/13 16:16:53


    Post by: Racerguy180


    kirotheavenger wrote:I truly hate secondaries. I just want to play a game and it's an unholy amount of faff. They present you with three options; learn the secondaries and which ones are best in a given matchup, spend 15 minutes before a game reading and choosing them, or don't think about it and just pick whatever.
    The first is a lot of information to ingrain, totally impractical for a casual player. The second is a huge waste of time for everyone involved. The third is doomed to failure as secondaries are fully half the game, throwing away good choices can really hurt you.

    I much prefer Open War. Simple, you draw the cards and you play the mission. But still varied and interesting.

    Yup, secondaries blow.

    Open War Deck is fun period. In 8th, out of the 300ish open war games I played, we had the "same" cards...once. it wasn't even the same game due to different terrain, units and it was against a different player.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/13 16:22:24


    Post by: Sim-Life


    a_typical_hero wrote:
    I can only recommend trying out the actual Crusade missions, even in your normal games.

    They add some variety as well.


    Do you and PenitantJake just spend your days trying to find ways to suggest playing Crusade in every thread?


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/13 17:01:30


    Post by: the_scotsman


     Daedalus81 wrote:
    Slipspace wrote:
     the_scotsman wrote:
    Primarily, the main problem I have at this point is compared to other games I play, 40k feels incredibly un-interactive and incredibly just drop-dead instant deadly, and I think that impression is more based on 'a large fraction of your units basically only get to TRY to do one single thing before they die' than any actual 'how long does your army last in terms of turn-count.'


    This is the biggest problem for me too. 9th edition just makes it so easy to remove entire units in one go. Yes, terrain can help to mitigate alpha strikes but the problem remains that units are rarely able to withstand being attacked and those that can often do so only by stacking ridiculous defensive statlines and buffs to the point that regular units can't scratch them. There's not enough incremental advantage in 40k because the only way to interact with your opponent is to kill their stuff. Other wargames have concepts like suppression or some sort of working morale system, or positioning where you can sacrifice damage output on one turn for a superior position in the next. 40k has "you can't see these guys so they're safe" and "these guys are visible so they're dead if my opponent wants them to be".

    I always think back to an interview Gav Thorpe gave about the 3rd edition Wraithlord when he said the designers were worried it might be too powerful because it could kill up to 3 Space Marines in a single close combat phase! The average was a mighty 2 Space Marines. Nowadays it's not uncommon for single units to be able to kill 2 whole units each per round.


    I really feel like people are taking the cause out of 'cause and effect' here.

    If a 200 point unit dies, but it took 400 to 500 points to do it - what's the problem? Everyone acts like it's just a given while ignoring what percentage the opponent wound up putting into killing that unit.

    Imagine 20 Vanguard Vets using Enriched Rounds ( they shouldn't ) to kill 5 marines in cover - they'd kill two marines. The notorious unit that kills anything and costs 200 points managed to kill 40 with an additional 2CP. Maybe 20 Ranger Vets could with Volley? Nope - just 3 instead and another 2 CP.

    Ok maybe 3 Las Chickens shooting a Contemptor. That seems like a plausible scenario. The average damage is 8.9. It must be dead, right? Hold on. The average wounds is 1.77, which means one gets through and second MIGHT get through. What's the real probability? 54%. 225 points has a 54% chance to kill 150. There's also a 12% chance it goes completely unscathed. But people only focus on that coin flip where the outcome was bad for them and never remember the times it survived.




    That's probably because I, the "Target" player, have only one option during my opponent's turn, i.e., to be 'The Target' and maybe pop 1-2 defensive strats or interrupts over the course of my opponent's entire turn.

    Yeah, it's tough to remember That Time When The Las-Chicken Shot It's Super-Lascannons At My Guy And I Made My 6+ Armor Save, because the next las-chicken just shoots, I don't make my save vs that one, and I have accomplished "mildly inconveniencing my opponent' through no fault of my own but instead just because I rolled a 6 on a die.

    For a truly memorable 'oh my god, it survived' event to occur, your thing needs to survive EVERYTHING your opponent has to throw at it, and in a game with super-duper-hyper-accommodating "TrUe" line of sight and a board size that makes range an essentially meaningless stat for around 2/3s of the units in the game, generally that just doesn't happen.

    let's take my most recent game as an example - admech and drukhari, two top codexes using somewhat, but not entirely optimized lists. The moments of unexpected survival were as follows:

    1 - turn 1, I shoot two Void Lances from my bomber at my opponent's Scorpius Disintegrator, and it survives on 2 hit points left.

    ....Then, I shoot a single disintegrator from a raider at it. It dies.

    2 - Turn 2 - my opponent counter-charges Sicarian Ruststalkers into a unit of 15 Hellions, but I've given them a 4++ and I also drop a -1 to hit on them, so only 10 die, and the remaining 5 swing back and kill the whole ruststalker squad except for 1. The Ruststalker alpha flees, 3/5 of the remaining hellions flee, and the 2 remaining hellions are unexpectedly left on the board, don't spend it all in one place I guess!

    3 - 9 antitank weapons including 2 heat lances and 4 dark lances completely fail to cause any damage to an admech flyer. This one actually did impact the outcome of the game.

    4 - lelith survives the close combat attacks of a techpriest dominus, staying on one hit point. Then, on my opponent's turn, the dominus falls back and 3 skitarii vanguard easily dispatch lelith.

    I'm not saying 'aa solves everything' here but this is a specific problem specific to a game setup like 40k, which combines pure IGOUGO with extreme deadliness and extreme range/super permissive LOS. If you put all three of those things together, what you get is a situation where things are going to get 'stuff gets whacked off the table super easily before I felt like I got to do anything with it' as a very very common complaint, and it is ABSOLUTELY the most common complaint that I get the most often from people who have never played 40k before experiencing it for the first time.

    Competitive tournament setups with gigantic amounts of LOS blocking terrain might be able to turn the game into kind of a 'rocket tag cat-and-mouse' setup but if you take 2 people who have generally read thrugh the rules and set up to play a game, it is absolutely normal for each player to be losing 500-750pt chunks of their 2000pt army turn 1, turn 2 and turn 3 and someone being basically on the verge of being tabled on the bottom of turn 3 is exceedingly common.

    From a gameplay perspective, I just cannot see how that isn't viewed as a massive, glaring problem, and how this could be the intended state of the game from the designers. "I got to make 0-2 decisions with any given one of my units" does not, to me, seem like something one should aim for if youre trying to design a wargame.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/13 17:01:52


    Post by: ccs


     oni wrote:

    The whole Crusade thing is and continues to be a non-starter. It will never gain traction no matter how hard GW may try. I applaud GW for trying something new but, this one didn't pan out.


    {Shrugs} Crusade sure seems popular in my gaming circle & the two local shops I frequent:

    •Shop A has run two Crusades.
    The first one had 16 players.
    The current one has 12. This dip though isn't about the pros/cons of Crusade, just real life getting in the way for 3 players (back to work/spouse back to work. we're running it here in july- Sept vs in the winter...) the 4th player? He just didn't like 9e as a whole. He'd play Crusade again though - if we used 4e/5e as a base rule set.

    Shop B? Has a considerably larger player base.
    The last Crusade they ran had almost 30 players!
    The next one they run will likely have that or more (there's been additional new players get into the game there between then & now and I know several of them are looking forward to going on Crusade)
    Don't get me wrong, there's still

    So maybe Crusade lacks traction where ever your at. But around here? Pretty popular.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/13 17:20:39


    Post by: a_typical_hero


     Sim-Life wrote:
    Do you and PenitantJake just spend your days trying to find ways to suggest playing Crusade in every thread?

    I think bringing up another set of missions people can play, when we are talking about it at the moment, is just a normal thing to do, isn't it? Mind you I suggested the Crusade missions, not playing Crusade mode.
    I let your unnecessary try to attack PenitentJake and me in lieu of a meaningful contribution speak for itself.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/13 17:40:02


    Post by: AnomanderRake


     Sim-Life wrote:
     Blackie wrote:


    I second this, Crusade is not easy to handle for someone that is trying to learn the game. I'd suggest to play matched 1000 points if the goal is to learn the game mechanics. Smaller formats only if players don't have enough models, as at 1000 points it feels like a proper 40k experience while 500 points is closer to Kill Team.


    Disagree. Its easier to learn a game in small increments. Unless you're playing with just unit and weapon statlines and no unit or faction special rules 1000pts will have too many things to keep track of. 500pts gives you enough room to learn the fundamentals without overwhelming people. If you're worried about the "proper 40k experience" whatever that is then why not just go straight to 2000pts?


    That's an argument for playing small games, not for playing Crusade (=small games with a pile of extra rules on top of the base game).


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/13 17:56:53


    Post by: ERJAK


    ccs wrote:
    ERJAK wrote:

    But past editions weren't better. The rules were hundreds of pages long, filled to the brim with opaque nonsense and poor design choices the same way every rule GW has ever written has been. Once you learned the game it was relatively simple to keep up to date with it but it would be a week of sitting around reading the rulebook before someone could even reasonably be able to play through a basic movement phase->shooting phase. Remember, back in those days it took 30+ pages just to tell you how to move a model from point A to point B. With 9th you could feasibly play a basic marine vs marine 500pt game the first day you pick up the rulebook and be pretty confident in the basics by the end of it.


    Hmm. Either your describing 7th ed (the only edition I didn't play & don't own any books for) OR your prone to hyperbole, misremembering RT - 6e, & played these games with exceptionally stupid people.
    Because your not describing any edition of 40k I've ever played....


    ERJAK wrote:

    Older editions started off with overbloated rules and added more stuff relatively sparingly until they got boring or broke completely (looking at you 5th).


    Again, must've been a 7th ed thing. Because GWs never been shy about adding new/more stuff. The only difference was that you didn't receive it all within a 3 yr window.



    ERJAK wrote:

    3. Bring the damage down a bit. Shooting and melee. That way you don't end up with things like the vehicle teeter totter we're seeing right now (i.e. Melta makes Vehicles bad so no one brings vehicles. No one bringing vehicles means people stop bringing melta. No one bringing melta means vehicles get good, vehicles being good means more people bring melta. Etc.) Or the being reliant on terrain to extend engagements.


    Not sure how you expect GW to solve that one. The dance of bringing/not bringing of AT weapons vs bringing/not bringing vehicles to a game has been going on longer than 40ks existed.
    It's just answering the fundamental questions of "What's the other guy likely to bring? How can I take advantage of that?"


    1. I am prone to illustrative hyperbole, my greater points stands. The older rulebooks were terrible. When you were learning you might have THOUGHT you were playing the game right after the first couple readthroughs of the book but you weren't. At all. I guarantee your first couple games were the wargaming equivalent of clacking dolls together and making pew-pew noises, ESPECIALLY if you thought 6e was approachable. Having someone who was already familiar with the game helps with learning the absolute basics, but it was literally 30 pages of rules to be able to pick up any model you owned and walk it from open terrain into cover.

    That's all completely ignoring the fact that a lot of the rules just straight up didn't work in previous editions and you need either house rules or community faqs to get around nonsensical rules interations.

    2. Do you just not know what sparingly means? 1 supplement book and 1 codex every couple of months is VERY 'sparingly', I don't care what the actual total of books is at the end.

    3. You completely lost the forests for the trees there. It's not really even worth illustrating how the example that vehicles are almost completely worthless until the average oppenent is bringing literally NO anti-tank at all, rather than just a natural ebb and flow of favoring vs not favoring armor to a couple of degrees, is a problem that has it's roots in the lethality issue of the game.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/13 18:15:39


    Post by: PenitentJake


     oni wrote:
    9th edition is definitely 'tournament-hammer'. There is no disputing this.


    Yes, there is disputing this, because I dispute it. Again, whether or not YOU play Open or Crusade, both of these things do exist, and both are 9th ed. phenomenon.

    I will not dispute that Matched play was designed for the tournament scene, with input from TO's. This is very clearly true.

    That is not the same as "9th is the tournament edition," whether YOU think it is or not.

     oni wrote:

    Narrative Play should have remained exactly what it was in 8th edition; the inclusion of City Fight, Planetstrike, Stronghold Assault, campaign books, etc.


    I would definitely support the return of Planetstrike, Stronghold Assault, Cityfight, etc. They were cool; I liked them, and I feel they could add to Crusade.

     oni wrote:

    The whole Crusade thing is and continues to be a non-starter. It will never gain traction no matter how hard GW may try.


    This may be your subjective experience, but it is not mine. Crusade is my favourite part of 9th edition, and it's pretty much the only way I play. If someone wants to play matched, I'd be willing to compromise- I'd probably track as much as I could for my Crusade force, but that wouldn't affect my opponent's experience.

    I concede that I, and people like me are the minority on Dakka. This does not mean we do not exist.




    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/13 18:33:01


    Post by: aphyon


    I don't recall a supplement with those other missions,


    Remember i have been playing since 3rd and the comment specifically was about 4th and 5th ed games. many of those other missions came from the 4th ed rulebook that had a host of extra game and mission types for normal games, combat patrols and kill teams.

    I did not even include bunker assault, convoy, or sabotage for example that had entirely different table setups.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/13 18:35:57


    Post by: dreadblade


     oni wrote:
    To course correct GW needs to stop pandering to the tournament players and get back to the fundamentals that made W40K fun and enjoyable. They can start by taking a step back towards codex simplicity with a heavy handed reduction in stratagems, detachment abilities, relics, warlord traits, etc. Next, is the elimination of book-keeping; we should be putting our time and efforts into playing and not constantly coming to a full stop to log and track win conditions.


    Agree with this.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/13 19:00:54


    Post by: Daedalus81


     the_scotsman wrote:
    That's probably because I, the "Target" player, have only one option during my opponent's turn, i.e., to be 'The Target' and maybe pop 1-2 defensive strats or interrupts over the course of my opponent's entire turn.

    Yeah, it's tough to remember That Time When The Las-Chicken Shot It's Super-Lascannons At My Guy And I Made My 6+ Armor Save, because the next las-chicken just shoots, I don't make my save vs that one, and I have accomplished "mildly inconveniencing my opponent' through no fault of my own but instead just because I rolled a 6 on a die.

    For a truly memorable 'oh my god, it survived' event to occur, your thing needs to survive EVCusERYTHING your opponent has to throw at it, and in a game with super-duper-hyper-accommodating "TrUe" line of sight and a board size that makes range an essentially meaningless stat for around 2/3s of the units in the game, generally that just doesn't happen.

    let's take my most recent game as an example - admech and drukhari, two top codexes using somewhat, but not entirely optimized lists. The moments of unexpected survival were as follows:

    1 - turn 1, I shoot two Void Lances from my bomber at my opponent's Scorpius Disintegrator, and it survives on 2 hit points left.

    ....Then, I shoot a single disintegrator from a raider at it. It dies.

    2 - Turn 2 - my opponent counter-charges Sicarian Ruststalkers into a unit of 15 Hellions, but I've given them a 4++ and I also drop a -1 to hit on them, so only 10 die, and the remaining 5 swing back and kill the whole ruststalker squad except for 1. The Ruststalker alpha flees, 3/5 of the remaining hellions flee, and the 2 remaining hellions are unexpectedly left on the board, don't spend it all in one place I guess!

    3 - 9 antitank weapons including 2 heat lances and 4 dark lances completely fail to cause any damage to an admech flyer. This one actually did impact the outcome of the game.

    4 - lelith survives the close combat attacks of a techpriest dominus, staying on one hit point. Then, on my opponent's turn, the dominus falls back and 3 skitarii vanguard easily dispatch lelith.

    I'm not saying 'aa solves everything' here but this is a specific problem specific to a game setup like 40k, which combines pure IGOUGO with extreme deadliness and extreme range/super permissive LOS. If you put all three of those things together, what you get is a situation where things are going to get 'stuff gets whacked off the table super easily before I felt like I got to do anything with it' as a very very common complaint, and it is ABSOLUTELY the most common complaint that I get the most often from people who have never played 40k before experiencing it for the first time.

    Competitive tournament setups with gigantic amounts of LOS blocking terrain might be able to turn the game into kind of a 'rocket tag cat-and-mouse' setup but if you take 2 people who have generally read thrugh the rules and set up to play a game, it is absolutely normal for each player to be losing 500-750pt chunks of their 2000pt army turn 1, turn 2 and turn 3 and someone being basically on the verge of being tabled on the bottom of turn 3 is exceedingly common.

    From a gameplay perspective, I just cannot see how that isn't viewed as a massive, glaring problem, and how this could be the intended state of the game from the designers. "I got to make 0-2 decisions with any given one of my units" does not, to me, seem like something one should aim for if youre trying to design a wargame.


    I'm not even really sure how even 10 Ruststalkers with blades could easily put 20 wounds on a -1 to hit 4++ unit, but I know 5 Hellions couldn't kill 9 Ruststalkers so it was a unit of 5, which seems even more impossible. Lelith can consolidate away from combat so she has the opportunity to go hide from time to time.

    But, what should be the outcome for each of these scenarios? The tank got to hide behind cover before you got to shoot it? Or you got to fly behind and hit it from the read guaranteeing a kill?

    AA isn't a panacea and comes with it's own problems including massively increasing the time for a game to complete as well as a really high skill ceiling. You may not be doing new players any favors with it in the long run ( e.g. Warmachine ).




    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/13 19:09:50


    Post by: AnomanderRake


    PenitentJake wrote:
     oni wrote:
    9th edition is definitely 'tournament-hammer'. There is no disputing this.


    Yes, there is disputing this, because I dispute it. Again, whether or not YOU play Open or Crusade, both of these things do exist, and both are 9th ed. phenomenon.

    I will not dispute that Matched play was designed for the tournament scene, with input from TO's. This is very clearly true.

    That is not the same as "9th is the tournament edition," whether YOU think it is or not...


    Personally I'm calling 9th "the tournament edition" independent of the fact that Crusade exists because there are a lot of decisions GW's made with the core rules, Codexes, and general release design that feel like the elements of the game common to Crusade and to Matched Play were written with tournament play in mind and Crusade is a tacked-on afterthought. That doesn't mean that 40k is only Matched Play and Crusade doesn't exist, or that Crusade isn't fun for you, only that I feel like I have to make concessions to tournament playstyles with regards to pretty basic things like unit choice, loadouts, and the card game to play 9e at all.

    I also describe 9th as "the tournament edition" because to me the only reason to play 9th over any other wargame is "lots of people are playing it." The models are cool, yes, but I could be playing oldhammer and be able to use models I like and have fun. Crusade exists, but it's a pale shadow of the depth of campaign structure available if we pull out a skirmish system like Mordheim or Necromunda. Gameplay is half-baked, bloated, too abstract, and unnecessarily complicated, games are won far more often during list-building than on the table, and it's horrendously expensive to put together an army for and takes a lot of time and work to put on the table and play, even by comparison to other games in the same scale/army size like Legion or Bolt Action. The only reason left for me to play 9th is that it's a game people host tournaments for regularly, if I'm just playing with friends 9th might as well not exist.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/13 19:14:25


    Post by: techsoldaten


     the_scotsman wrote:
    I'm not saying 'aa solves everything' here but this is a specific problem specific to a game setup like 40k, which combines pure IGOUGO with extreme deadliness and extreme range/super permissive LOS. If you put all three of those things together, what you get is a situation where things are going to get 'stuff gets whacked off the table super easily before I felt like I got to do anything with it' as a very very common complaint, and it is ABSOLUTELY the most common complaint that I get the most often from people who have never played 40k before experiencing it for the first time.


    Wondering how AA actually solves anything here. Units can still be eliminated before being activated, it just happens sequentially. Plus it creates an incentive to activate the shootiest units first by creating a penalty for taking melee specialists.

    Rules that limit damage might offer a better solution. Ghaz, for example.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/13 19:19:52


    Post by: AnomanderRake


     techsoldaten wrote:
     the_scotsman wrote:
    I'm not saying 'aa solves everything' here but this is a specific problem specific to a game setup like 40k, which combines pure IGOUGO with extreme deadliness and extreme range/super permissive LOS. If you put all three of those things together, what you get is a situation where things are going to get 'stuff gets whacked off the table super easily before I felt like I got to do anything with it' as a very very common complaint, and it is ABSOLUTELY the most common complaint that I get the most often from people who have never played 40k before experiencing it for the first time.


    Wondering how AA actually solves anything here. Units can still be eliminated before being activated, it just happens sequentially. Plus it creates an incentive to activate the shootiest units first by creating a penalty for taking melee specialists.

    Rules that limit damage might offer a better solution. Ghaz, for example.


    If you wanted to fix 40k it might be better to try and fix the actual problem by going back and toning down the damage creep rather than throwing up your hands and saying "no, damage creep out of control, must burn down the system and start again!" (though given that that's exactly what happened in the 7th->8th transition...). As for AA it might be better to look at playing a different game that's designed for AA (say, Legion or Bolt Action) rather than trying to shoehorn AA into a system that's not really designed for it.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/13 19:29:23


    Post by: kirotheavenger


    PenitentJake wrote:
     kirotheavenger wrote:
    Indeed, it's almost like Open Play is totally pointless and exists only so GW can say there's "three ways to play" and make the game sound like it'll suit anyone.


    The handful of players on Dakka who swear by Open War would probably disagree.

    I'm one of those Dakka-ers that swear by Open War. Open War has honestly nothing to do with Open Play, I mentioned before that I had been to multiple tournaments that use the Open War deck to generate missions in a Matched Play tournamen setting.

    Open Play is pointless, my group even uses Matched rules for Narrative Play. The general rules of the game need not to unyieldingly linked to the missions you're playing.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/13 19:36:19


    Post by: the_scotsman


     Daedalus81 wrote:
     the_scotsman wrote:
    That's probably because I, the "Target" player, have only one option during my opponent's turn, i.e., to be 'The Target' and maybe pop 1-2 defensive strats or interrupts over the course of my opponent's entire turn.

    Yeah, it's tough to remember That Time When The Las-Chicken Shot It's Super-Lascannons At My Guy And I Made My 6+ Armor Save, because the next las-chicken just shoots, I don't make my save vs that one, and I have accomplished "mildly inconveniencing my opponent' through no fault of my own but instead just because I rolled a 6 on a die.

    For a truly memorable 'oh my god, it survived' event to occur, your thing needs to survive EVCusERYTHING your opponent has to throw at it, and in a game with super-duper-hyper-accommodating "TrUe" line of sight and a board size that makes range an essentially meaningless stat for around 2/3s of the units in the game, generally that just doesn't happen.

    let's take my most recent game as an example - admech and drukhari, two top codexes using somewhat, but not entirely optimized lists. The moments of unexpected survival were as follows:

    1 - turn 1, I shoot two Void Lances from my bomber at my opponent's Scorpius Disintegrator, and it survives on 2 hit points left.

    ....Then, I shoot a single disintegrator from a raider at it. It dies.

    2 - Turn 2 - my opponent counter-charges Sicarian Ruststalkers into a unit of 15 Hellions, but I've given them a 4++ and I also drop a -1 to hit on them, so only 10 die, and the remaining 5 swing back and kill the whole ruststalker squad except for 1. The Ruststalker alpha flees, 3/5 of the remaining hellions flee, and the 2 remaining hellions are unexpectedly left on the board, don't spend it all in one place I guess!

    3 - 9 antitank weapons including 2 heat lances and 4 dark lances completely fail to cause any damage to an admech flyer. This one actually did impact the outcome of the game.

    4 - lelith survives the close combat attacks of a techpriest dominus, staying on one hit point. Then, on my opponent's turn, the dominus falls back and 3 skitarii vanguard easily dispatch lelith.

    I'm not saying 'aa solves everything' here but this is a specific problem specific to a game setup like 40k, which combines pure IGOUGO with extreme deadliness and extreme range/super permissive LOS. If you put all three of those things together, what you get is a situation where things are going to get 'stuff gets whacked off the table super easily before I felt like I got to do anything with it' as a very very common complaint, and it is ABSOLUTELY the most common complaint that I get the most often from people who have never played 40k before experiencing it for the first time.

    Competitive tournament setups with gigantic amounts of LOS blocking terrain might be able to turn the game into kind of a 'rocket tag cat-and-mouse' setup but if you take 2 people who have generally read thrugh the rules and set up to play a game, it is absolutely normal for each player to be losing 500-750pt chunks of their 2000pt army turn 1, turn 2 and turn 3 and someone being basically on the verge of being tabled on the bottom of turn 3 is exceedingly common.

    From a gameplay perspective, I just cannot see how that isn't viewed as a massive, glaring problem, and how this could be the intended state of the game from the designers. "I got to make 0-2 decisions with any given one of my units" does not, to me, seem like something one should aim for if youre trying to design a wargame.


    I'm not even really sure how even 10 Ruststalkers with blades could easily put 20 wounds on a -1 to hit 4++ unit, but I know 5 Hellions couldn't kill 9 Ruststalkers so it was a unit of 5, which seems even more impossible. Lelith can consolidate away from combat so she has the opportunity to go hide from time to time.

    But, what should be the outcome for each of these scenarios? The tank got to hide behind cover before you got to shoot it? Or you got to fly behind and hit it from the read guaranteeing a kill?

    AA isn't a panacea and comes with it's own problems including massively increasing the time for a game to complete as well as a really high skill ceiling. You may not be doing new players any favors with it in the long run ( e.g. Warmachine ).




    10 Ruststalkers, Chordclaws+Razors, Ryza subfaction trait, Assassin Constructs stratagem, Conqueror Protocol. On average rolls they should kill about 8, but they ended up killing 10. the response from the Hellions was Cursed Blade wych cult which killed a couple with mortal wounds, they had Strength+WS drugs making them hit on 2s, wound on 2s, kill on 5s to save - they rolled about average taking out 7 with their attacks - average is 7.4.

    the amount of buffs, stratagems, auras, subfactions, turn-by-turn effects, purity bonuses, heck relics and WLTs because you can put THOSE on a ruststalker sergeant at potential play with current competitive units has turned the game into an absolutely un-theorizable shibboleth that generally results in things being far, far, far deadlier than you think they ever ought to be...but there it is anyway.

    AA isn't a panacea but BOY does the ability to take some kind of action during your opponent's turn make a deadly game feel a whole lot less deadly. And how could you possibly create a LESS friendly for new players game situation than the current state of rules for factions like Space Marines, Drukhari and Admech? 9th edition codexes are absolute nightmares of complexity, and the second you step out of that for a second and look at any other wargame you'll find yourself asking "wait....what? That's it? That's all I need to remember? Just one single army-wide ability? one table of to-hit modifiers that applies to EVERY unit universally? One statline for a rifle, a submachine gun, an LMG, an HMG, and that's IT for infantry weapons, are you SURE I dont' need to memorize thirty-two different boltgun statlines?"

    40k might have upsides compared to other wargaming systems...but its NOT accessibility to new players, holy hell.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/13 19:37:47


    Post by: Da Boss


    On the AA debate, all I can say is that AA feels better to me in a high lethality game. It feels awful to spend ages painting and then setting up your dudes to have them deleted before they do anything, and that's a lot rarer in AA (it can happen, but look at how many examples in the Scotsman's example required two units).

    I think the best compromise (and the best system GW ever produced except for BFG) is LOTR, which is IGOUGO but with heroic actions which allow out of sequence actions for the expenditure of a strategic resource (Might points) and leads to lots of interesting counterplay and decision making and allows you to prioritise your bad ass unit. I wish 40K would institute that kind of counterplay.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/13 19:49:58


    Post by: vict0988


    aphyon wrote:
    I don't recall a supplement with those other missions,


    Remember i have been playing since 3rd and the comment specifically was about 4th and 5th ed games. many of those other missions came from the 4th ed rulebook that had a host of extra game and mission types for normal games, combat patrols and kill teams.

    I did not even include bunker assault, convoy, or sabotage for example that had entirely different table setups.

    4th ed had 5 missions that were all end of game objectives, that wouldn't work for a second in 9th because the lethality is much too high.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/13 19:51:21


    Post by: Gregor Samsa


    I agree that the LOTR system is quite elegant. Age of Sigmar as well has some clever rules which makes "playing on the defence" a bit more fun and tactical.

    The reality is that 40k's scale of battle has crept to the size of Apocalypse (in terms of unit killing power) and yet we're not using any of those essential QOL rules (damage at end of turn etc.)



    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/13 20:21:05


    Post by: The Newman


     AnomanderRake wrote:
     techsoldaten wrote:
     the_scotsman wrote:
    I'm not saying 'aa solves everything' here but this is a specific problem specific to a game setup like 40k, which combines pure IGOUGO with extreme deadliness and extreme range/super permissive LOS. If you put all three of those things together, what you get is a situation where things are going to get 'stuff gets whacked off the table super easily before I felt like I got to do anything with it' as a very very common complaint, and it is ABSOLUTELY the most common complaint that I get the most often from people who have never played 40k before experiencing it for the first time.


    Wondering how AA actually solves anything here. Units can still be eliminated before being activated, it just happens sequentially. Plus it creates an incentive to activate the shootiest units first by creating a penalty for taking melee specialists.

    Rules that limit damage might offer a better solution. Ghaz, for example.


    If you wanted to fix 40k it might be better to try and fix the actual problem by going back and toning down the damage creep rather than throwing up your hands and saying "no, damage creep out of control, must burn down the system and start again!" (though given that that's exactly what happened in the 7th->8th transition...). As for AA it might be better to look at playing a different game that's designed for AA (say, Legion or Bolt Action) rather than trying to shoehorn AA into a system that's not really designed for it.


    Having played a fair bit of Bolt Action sometimes the winner winds up being determined by the random die draw to decide who gets to activate next, and that's not exactly a "feels good" moment either. Nothing like losing several activations because your opponent drew four or five dice in a row and now all your units are pinned.

    I like AA in theory, but it can be implemented badly just like anything else.

    Back on-topic, I always feel like "the incredible lethality of 40k" is a bit overstated. I've had plenty of turns where my opponent or I threw everything we could bring to bear on a target without killing it; if there's enough LoS blocking terrain on the board then it turns into a game of maneuver and piece-trading so my complaints tend to focus on indirect fire weapons not suffering appropriate to-hit penalties and being able to fire at units that no other friendly unit has LoS to either, to-hit penalties from different sources not stacking (I shouldn't get to ignore the penalty for firing a Heavy weapon on the move just because your jet is Supersonic), Morale just removing more models, and being able to kill model A that I can't target because I can target model B in the same unit.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/13 20:30:11


    Post by: yukishiro1


    LOTR is far and away GW's best rules system (at least among the ones still extant), but it only works with low model counts. It starts to seriously chug even in the higher points values normally played in that game.

    I think you could adapt the basic ideas to a game like 40k, but it'd need to be reworked from the ground up to accommodate units of multiple models.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/13 20:33:39


    Post by: Da Boss


    Yeah, you'd need to design it to be squad based rather than single model based. The more I think about it the more I think I would love a game like that.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/13 20:49:14


    Post by: AnomanderRake


    The Newman wrote:
    ...Having played a fair bit of Bolt Action sometimes the winner winds up being determined by the random die draw to decide who gets to activate next, and that's not exactly a "feels good" moment either. Nothing like losing several activations because your opponent drew four or five dice in a row and now all your units are pinned...


    Well, yeah. I've played a lot of game systems and I've never found any that are immune to "feels bad" moments. Misjudge your turn slightly in X-Wing and land on an asteroid. Roll all blanks on your twelve-dice super attack in Crisis Protocol. Anything to do with the Overlord hack in Infinity. I bring up Bolt Action because it's a game designed specifically for alternating activations, which lead to a very different set of core assumptions about what does what and how units interact from 40k. If you tried to apply Bolt Action's pinning system to 40k's discrete turns the resulting first-player advantage would break everything. If you tried to apply 40k's "all units get to do 5-6 things a turn" to Bolt Action the game would slow to a crawl and you'd never finish.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/13 23:30:34


    Post by: H.B.M.C.


    PenitentJake wrote:
    Yes, there is disputing this, because I dispute it.
    Chapter Approved has changed to "Grand Tournament" packs. They adopted the mission structure and scoring methods of some of the largest tournaments in the world. They went to tournament players for their playtesting. The missions are all slight variations on the same thing, over and over again, with little variety.

    This is 40k Tournament Edition. Disputing it just makes you look silly.

     oni wrote:
    The whole Crusade thing is and continues to be a non-starter. It will never gain traction no matter how hard GW may try. I applaud GW for trying something new but, this one didn't pan out.
    What is this opinion based on?



    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 00:16:37


    Post by: Jarms48


    Personally, I just want a return of 5th edition with the simplifications they made to the rules in 8th/9th edition.

    So basically roll back the clock to 5th edition, but instead of trying to make the game "more cinematic" and convoluted like they did with 6th edition, then double downed in 7th, they streamline the rules more instead.



    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 00:31:31


    Post by: TangoTwoBravo


    For me, 9th Ed is an improved 8th Ed. Regarding Winters' SEO's video, Matched Play is indeed tighter than 8th Ed. The rules are worded in a more "tight" manner to reduce arguments. The "book" missions are meaningful instead of the meaningless missions of the previous editions.

    I agree with Winters that 8th Ed was more accessible, but I wouldn't say that it is a huge decrease in accessibility. Yes, if a player takes Ad Mech to a tourney for their first game ever they are in for brain melt. You don't have to do that. When I have played a "first game of 9th" for other players I suggest we play 500 to 1000 points with just the datasheet rules and Only War for the mission. Essentially Open Play with the core rules and the datasheets. If my opponent has studied their Codex and want to try some of it out I will say sure - lets use your Faction rules but park Strats for the first game. Then you build.

    9th is much more accessible than the editions before 8th (I played 2nd through 6th). I understand that some have a love for older editions and I trust that people have fun playing the editions that they find fun!


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 00:44:47


    Post by: Ordana


    TangoTwoBravo wrote:
    For me, 9th Ed is an improved 8th Ed. Regarding Winters' SEO's video, Matched Play is indeed tighter than 8th Ed. The rules are worded in a more "tight" manner to reduce arguments. The "book" missions are meaningful instead of the meaningless missions of the previous editions.

    I agree with Winters that 8th Ed was more accessible, but I wouldn't say that it is a huge decrease in accessibility. Yes, if a player takes Ad Mech to a tourney for their first game ever they are in for brain melt. You don't have to do that. When I have played a "first game of 9th" for other players I suggest we play 500 to 1000 points with just the datasheet rules and Only War for the mission. Essentially Open Play with the core rules and the datasheets. If my opponent has studied their Codex and want to try some of it out I will say sure - lets use your Faction rules but park Strats for the first game. Then you build.

    9th is much more accessible than the editions before 8th (I played 2nd through 6th). I understand that some have a love for older editions and I trust that people have fun playing the editions that they find fun!
    I simply can't agree with 9th being more accessible then previous editions.

    Back in y old days your units had a stat and weapon profile and so did your opponents units with maybe 1 universal special rule that was in the rulebook for everyone to see. Any unit you never met before was quickly explained and absorbed by simply listing its stat and weapon profile. Now there is an aura in play, faction traits, subfaction traits and statagems.

    9th basic bare minimal rules are a little simpler then previous editions but not even by much. Once you move beyond the basic rulebook accessibility goes down the toilet as layers upon layers get added in quick succession.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 00:48:16


    Post by: PenitentJake


     H.B.M.C. wrote:


    Chapter Approved has changed to "Grand Tournament" packs.


    Which are intended for use only in Matched Play games. Crusade players have three other mission packs designed specifically for the Crusade Variant of the game, while Open play has the open war deck. Maelstrom rules were also printed in WD. And yes, while it is true, as others have pointed out that there's nothing stopping people from using the open war deck in matched play, and there's nothing stopping people from battle forging open play armies, neither of those points negate the fact GW designed three distinct ways to play the game and provided both BRB and supplemental materials intended to support each of those three ways to play.

    One of those three ways to play absolutely was clearly designed with the tournament circuit in mind.

    The other two, equally clearly, were not.

     H.B.M.C. wrote:


    They adopted the mission structure and scoring methods of some of the largest tournaments in the world.


    Yes, matched play did. Kindly show me a single printed Open play or Crusade resource that scores secondaries for VPs.

     H.B.M.C. wrote:

    They went to tournament players for their playtesting.


    Yes, I'm sure TO's and tourney play testers were involved in the testing of Matched play rules.

    I suppose it's possible that they were involved in playtesting Open and Crusade- I don't follow studio interviews and blogs as much as some people do, so please, if you could point to any source of reliable information about the contributions of tournament players and organizers to Open and Crusade, I'm prepared to stand corrected.

     H.B.M.C. wrote:

    The missions are all slight variations on the same thing, over and over again, with little variety.


    Could you be more specific about which missions provide these slight variations?

    I'm inclined to believe you're referring to the GT mission pack ones, but I don't want to judge unfairly.

    Are you including the missions generated by the Open war deck, the Crusade Mission Packs, or the campaign book missions?
    Do you use Theatre of War modifiers to missions?

    Do you find a greater range of variety in these other missions from the GT ones? Do you classify a mission as just the mission rule set, or do you consider the interaction of Secondaries in matched play? If so, do you find that Crusade's decoupling of Agendas from victory conditions facilitates greater use of fluffy, non-optimal Agendas- and therefore non-optimal army lists?

    Honestly, this could be a topic of its own.

     H.B.M.C. wrote:

    This is 40k Tournament Edition. Disputing it just makes you look silly.


    As a guy who has played absolutely nothing but 25-50PL campaign-based Crusade since 9th dropped, I have to profoundly disagree. I am far more interested in whether or not my Ascendant Lord can find and recover his poison distillery in order to convince a Lhameaen to join his court, or whether or not my Bloody Rose Celestians who took the Penitent Oath after their shrine was destroyed can redeem themselves, than I am about any notion of competitive performance. These days? I wouldn't play in a tournament if YOU paid me! I'd much rather spend time advancing a story-line.

    I assure you that all of these things are represented by official 9th edition rules, and that few if any of said rules will ever find their way anywhere near a tournament.
    As such, I'm almost offended that you don't acknowledge the capacity of this edition to provide the experiences I'm describing.



    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 01:04:27


    Post by: H.B.M.C.


    You choosing to play Crusade exclusively doesn't change the fact that this edition was designed around tournament play. It took elements from existing tournaments and just made them part of the core rules.

    You can split hairs and say "Oh, but that's just matched play!" all you want, but in the end that's how most people interface with this game.

    This is Tournament Edition 40k.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 01:13:30


    Post by: TangoTwoBravo


     Ordana wrote:
    TangoTwoBravo wrote:
    For me, 9th Ed is an improved 8th Ed. Regarding Winters' SEO's video, Matched Play is indeed tighter than 8th Ed. The rules are worded in a more "tight" manner to reduce arguments. The "book" missions are meaningful instead of the meaningless missions of the previous editions.

    I agree with Winters that 8th Ed was more accessible, but I wouldn't say that it is a huge decrease in accessibility. Yes, if a player takes Ad Mech to a tourney for their first game ever they are in for brain melt. You don't have to do that. When I have played a "first game of 9th" for other players I suggest we play 500 to 1000 points with just the datasheet rules and Only War for the mission. Essentially Open Play with the core rules and the datasheets. If my opponent has studied their Codex and want to try some of it out I will say sure - lets use your Faction rules but park Strats for the first game. Then you build.

    9th is much more accessible than the editions before 8th (I played 2nd through 6th). I understand that some have a love for older editions and I trust that people have fun playing the editions that they find fun!
    I simply can't agree with 9th being more accessible then previous editions.

    Back in y old days your units had a stat and weapon profile and so did your opponents units with maybe 1 universal special rule that was in the rulebook for everyone to see. Any unit you never met before was quickly explained and absorbed by simply listing its stat and weapon profile. Now there is an aura in play, faction traits, subfaction traits and statagems.

    9th basic bare minimal rules are a little simpler then previous editions but not even by much. Once you move beyond the basic rulebook accessibility goes down the toilet as layers upon layers get added in quick succession.


    I just pulled my 4th Ed rulebook from the trunk. It has something like 76 pages of dense rules that a new player has to penetrate to get their first game in. 9th Edition core rules has 44 pages with a lower word count per page. That is better accessibility. If a new player tries to play their first game at a tourney then yes, they are in for a rough time. Just like every other edition. 9th Ed is easier to access as a new player than previous editions with the exception of 8th - and that is due to writing rules to mitigate the rules-lawyers.



    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 01:21:24


    Post by: H.B.M.C.


    The 9th Ed rules may be, but the rules don't stand on their own without the Codices. 9th Ed Codices are not accessible.

    I'm in my second year at AdMech University, and I've only completed Canticles 102. I've got 6 more semesters of this stuff and we can't even apply for the class on Stratagems until we have at least 4 credits in Warlord Traits and Forge World special rules. And that AdMech Relics final? Man that was tough. Taking that "Skitarii Veteran Cohort" elective was also a bad idea...


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 01:27:24


    Post by: Daedalus81


     the_scotsman wrote:

    10 Ruststalkers, Chordclaws+Razors, Ryza subfaction trait, Assassin Constructs stratagem, Conqueror Protocol. On average rolls they should kill about 8, but they ended up killing 10. the response from the Hellions was Cursed Blade wych cult which killed a couple with mortal wounds, they had Strength+WS drugs making them hit on 2s, wound on 2s, kill on 5s to save - they rolled about average taking out 7 with their attacks - average is 7.4.

    the amount of buffs, stratagems, auras, subfactions, turn-by-turn effects, purity bonuses, heck relics and WLTs because you can put THOSE on a ruststalker sergeant at potential play with current competitive units has turned the game into an absolutely un-theorizable shibboleth that generally results in things being far, far, far deadlier than you think they ever ought to be...but there it is anyway.

    AA isn't a panacea but BOY does the ability to take some kind of action during your opponent's turn make a deadly game feel a whole lot less deadly. And how could you possibly create a LESS friendly for new players game situation than the current state of rules for factions like Space Marines, Drukhari and Admech? 9th edition codexes are absolute nightmares of complexity, and the second you step out of that for a second and look at any other wargame you'll find yourself asking "wait....what? That's it? That's all I need to remember? Just one single army-wide ability? one table of to-hit modifiers that applies to EVERY unit universally? One statline for a rifle, a submachine gun, an LMG, an HMG, and that's IT for infantry weapons, are you SURE I dont' need to memorize thirty-two different boltgun statlines?"

    40k might have upsides compared to other wargaming systems...but its NOT accessibility to new players, holy hell.


    So the Admech player leaned into melee. They got +1 to hit ( effectively ), +1 to wound, and +1A. And clearly this was an important fight for you to push 2CP to 'protect ya neck', but Cursed Blade can't get a 4++ since that's locked to Strife, right? You also got lucky-ish getting both those drugs on random rolls.

    Right, so, shibboleth. You're taking a melee focused unit against another. Expectations should be something that helps them in melee. You already know what White Scars VV will do in turn 3, right? Ryza = WS in a very rough comparison. I would always expect WS LC VV to be scarier than UM LC VV. ( Note : you just read a bunch of gibberish and understood it and you didn't learn ) IH = good with vehicles and heavies, IF = good with bolters, Wych Cult = good for Wych units and good in melee, etc.

    Ruststalkers. As standard these guys do -- 10 wounds. Say only Ryza was on - ~13 wounds. Only Conquerors - ~13 wounds. Only Constructs - ~13 wounds. All together? Just about 20. So there wasn't any real multiplicative effect. Here's a good rule of thumb - as good as you think an enemy will perform - double it. As good as you think you will perform - halve it.



    I play 40K, because I find those other systems kind of bland. I play WW2 games for the setting and not really for the stats. I don't give a gak about bonuses there as long as a Tiger feels like what a Tiger should feel like. It makes some sense for rifles and LMGs to be the same stat, because getting hit is going to kill you or wound you severely. Not so with a lasgun or heavy bolter hitting a marine. But, I don't need to memorize bolt gun stat lines. My opponent tells me the AP and the damage and that's all I need.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 01:36:40


    Post by: Racerguy180


    H.B.M.C. wrote:You choosing to play Crusade exclusively doesn't change the fact that this edition was designed around tournament play. It took elements from existing tournaments and just made them part of the core rules.

    You can split hairs and say "Oh, but that's just matched play!" all you want, but in the end that's how most people interface with this game.

    This is Tournament Edition 40k.


    Yup, Crusade is wallpaper over tourney biased core rules. It may be fun(not for me) just to go thru yayy progression...hand motions. But the crappy core rules and then modifications/exemptions to said core rules do not a great game make.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 01:46:18


    Post by: H.B.M.C.


    And I'm one of those people who thinks Crusade is absolutely fantastic - and I will play the ever living feth out of it once my Tyranids get some actual Crusade rules - but I'm not about to pretend that it isn't a (very pretty) sideshow for what 40k has turned into.

    As it happens, Chapter Approved would have been the kind of thing GW used to give everyone else some basic 'get you by' Crusade rules - 1-2 unique requisitions, a unique agenda, a battle trait tables, and maybe 1-2 unique crusade relics - as Chapter Approved used to be about adding to the game as much as it was fixing broken things.

    Now Chapter Approved is this:


    ... and people want to sit there with a straight face and say that it's not "Tournament Edition 40k"? Give me strength...



    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 01:49:29


    Post by: Daedalus81


     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    The 9th Ed rules may be, but the rules don't stand on their own without the Codices. 9th Ed Codices are not accessible.

    I'm in my second year at AdMech University, and I've only completed Canticles 102. I've got 6 more semesters of this stuff and we can't even apply for the class on Stratagems until we have at least 4 credits in Warlord Traits and Forge World special rules. And that AdMech Relics final? Man that was tough. Taking that "Skitarii Veteran Cohort" elective was also a bad idea...


    - Doctrinas - 4 temporary buffs; one per turn; affects Skitari; upside and downside ( downside usually doesn't matter -- they should mix them up -- +1BS -1 Armor; +1Armor -1BS; +1WS -3M, etc )
    - Canticles - 5 temporary buffs; same gak, but affects only Cult and no downside
    - Tech Priest can be upgraded to a "Command Phase Psyker" - will affect CORE and/or Servitors - first part is active once and the second part sticks after that - also comes with a 1CP discount for one strat type
    - Relics
    - Traits
    - Strats

    Done


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 01:50:26


    Post by: H.B.M.C.


    All that math has killed your sense of humour.

    And you're starting to sound like Jidmah with his "40k isn't complicated. Take Death Gaurd! They only have 49 strats divided up into 7 broard categories".




    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 02:05:17


    Post by: Daedalus81


     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    All that math has killed your sense of humour.

    And you're starting to sound like Jidmah with his "40k isn't complicated. Take Death Gaurd! They only have 49 strats divided up into 7 broard categories".




    Yes, it probably has.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 02:20:47


    Post by: TangoTwoBravo


     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    The 9th Ed rules may be, but the rules don't stand on their own without the Codices. 9th Ed Codices are not accessible.

    I'm in my second year at AdMech University, and I've only completed Canticles 102. I've got 6 more semesters of this stuff and we can't even apply for the class on Stratagems until we have at least 4 credits in Warlord Traits and Forge World special rules. And that AdMech Relics final? Man that was tough. Taking that "Skitarii Veteran Cohort" elective was also a bad idea...


    Well played!

    Still, there is no requirement for a new player to absorb all of those, and even then its not really a high hill to climb if you want to play Ad Mech. You pick up your Codex and absorb what you want.

    "Accessible" does not mean knowing everything about every army in the game. Accessible means being able to get your first few games in without brain melt. 9th and 8th do that better that the previous editions that I played.







    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 02:36:35


    Post by: yukishiro1


    9th edition is quite a bit less accessible than 8th. There's no real arguing with this. The payoff is a better ruleset overall, but there's definitely a cost, particularly when it comes to parsing out the frankly ridiculous levels of rules you can now have. Base rules + single faction rules + single subfaction rules for some factions + extra supplement rules - we're back to 7th edition at this point in terms of needing to spend $200 and spend many hours learning just to get your rules the legal way.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 02:45:40


    Post by: Gregor Samsa


    What makes most people enjoy 9th edition more is that there are actually functional terrain rules which forces at least some movement around the board.

    8th edition had very little tactical manoeuvres as the RAW ridiculous "any point" LOS meant gunlines could just nuke each other from their deployment.

    At least now we have obscuring keyword, which by itself "saves" 9th edition from being worse than 8th.

    Anyway we're only two years from 10th now so lets hope 10 is a monumental change!


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 02:53:42


    Post by: TangoTwoBravo


    yukishiro1 wrote:
    9th edition is quite a bit less accessible than 8th. There's no real arguing with this. The payoff is a better ruleset overall, but there's definitely a cost, particularly when it comes to parsing out the frankly ridiculous levels of rules you can now have. Base rules + single faction rules + single subfaction rules for some factions + extra supplement rules - we're back to 7th edition at this point in terms of needing to spend $200 and spend many hours learning just to get your rules the legal way.


    I guess we can argue about "quite a bit" and "less" accessible with regards to 8th (are you considering PA in your calculus?). I will absolutely argue that 9th is more accessible than 2nd through 6th (didn't play 7th). Again, if you are trying to play in a tourney for your first game you in for a steep climb. As you would have been in other editions.

    Having said that, I do not like the campaign supplements thus far. While I am only tracking one that is a "must-have" from a competitive standpoint, it was still cynical for them to release it on the heels of the Drukhari Codex. I would rather have my Dark Angels in one book vs two (I am getting over it).

    Still, I am happy to leave my old MRBs in the crawlspace!



    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 03:23:17


    Post by: H.B.M.C.


     Gregor Samsa wrote:
    What makes most people enjoy 9th edition more is that there are actually functional terrain rules which forces at least some movement around the board.
    Really? You think the oddly worded, certainly somewhat convoluted, and in many cases non-scaling or counter-intuitive 9th Ed terrain rules are what makes "most people enjoy 9th edition more" than previous ones?


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 03:41:42


    Post by: AnomanderRake


     H.B.M.C. wrote:
     Gregor Samsa wrote:
    What makes most people enjoy 9th edition more is that there are actually functional terrain rules which forces at least some movement around the board.
    Really? You think the oddly worded, certainly somewhat convoluted, and in many cases non-scaling or counter-intuitive 9th Ed terrain rules are what makes "most people enjoy 9th edition more" than previous ones?


    Usually this argument comes from people who didn't play before 8th, and treat "9th has better terrain rules than 8th!" as "9th has the best terrain rules ever!"


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 03:53:37


    Post by: yukishiro1


    8th's terrain rules were so broken every competitive event used their own terrain rules.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 04:48:37


    Post by: vict0988


     Ordana wrote:
    Back in y old days your units had a stat and weapon profile and so did your opponents units with maybe 1 universal special rule that was in the rulebook for everyone to see.

    How far could an Eldar jetbike move?
     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    As it happens, Chapter Approved would have been the kind of thing GW used to give everyone else some basic 'get you by' Crusade rules - 1-2 unique requisitions, a unique agenda, a battle trait tables, and maybe 1-2 unique crusade relics - as Chapter Approved used to be about adding to the game as much as it was fixing broken things.

    Now Chapter Approved is this
    Spoiler:
    :


    ... and people want to sit there with a straight face and say that it's not "Tournament Edition 40k"? Give me strength...

    You're going to call that tournament edition? It's a god damn cashgrab, barely any changes to the missions of last year and only fixes for a handful of the idiotic points costs of last year, rather than the full points revamp the game needed to become competitive, secondaries for Astra Militarum, Tau and GSC at least or at the very least updated mission secondaries so they weren't all trash or the one auto-take one.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 05:23:49


    Post by: H.B.M.C.


     vict0988 wrote:
    You're going to call that tournament edition? It's a god damn cashgrab, barely any changes to the missions of last year and only fixes for a handful of the idiotic points costs of last year, rather than the full points revamp the game needed to become competitive, secondaries for Astra Militarum, Tau and GSC at least or at the very least updated mission secondaries so they weren't all trash or the one auto-take one.
    I think you're missing the point.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 06:06:23


    Post by: Jidmah


     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    All that math has killed your sense of humour.

    And you're starting to sound like Jidmah with his "40k isn't complicated. Take Death Gaurd! They only have 49 strats divided up into 7 broard categories".




    Wow, you must be really but hurt about that for bringing it up weeks later in a completely different thread. I'm truly sorry for not being able to dumb it down to your level so even you could understand. But then again, you are struggling with properly equipping plague marines.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 06:11:00


    Post by: vict0988


     H.B.M.C. wrote:
     vict0988 wrote:
    You're going to call that tournament edition? It's a god damn cashgrab, barely any changes to the missions of last year and only fixes for a handful of the idiotic points costs of last year, rather than the full points revamp the game needed to become competitive, secondaries for Astra Militarum, Tau and GSC at least or at the very least updated mission secondaries so they weren't all trash or the one auto-take one.
    I think you're missing the point.

    Yes, can you try making your point in another way? I think your point was "I want make your own Land Raider version rules and temporary Relics, you want points and missions, you got what you wanted, I didn't get what I wanted, therefore you are privileged". My point is that, unless the points and missions are balanced then they are not fit for competitive play. Nobody got what they wanted in CA20/CA21, stop saying that competitive players are privileged.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 06:42:21


    Post by: Sim-Life


     Jidmah wrote:
     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    All that math has killed your sense of humour.

    And you're starting to sound like Jidmah with his "40k isn't complicated. Take Death Gaurd! They only have 49 strats divided up into 7 broard categories".




    Wow, you must be really but hurt about that for bringing it up weeks later in a completely different thread. I'm truly sorry for not being able to dumb it down to your level so even you could understand. But then again, you are struggling with properly equipping plague marines.


    Well you did spend like half that thread calling people stupid for wanting less convoluted rules. It was a pretty bad look.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     vict0988 wrote:
     H.B.M.C. wrote:
     vict0988 wrote:
    You're going to call that tournament edition? It's a god damn cashgrab, barely any changes to the missions of last year and only fixes for a handful of the idiotic points costs of last year, rather than the full points revamp the game needed to become competitive, secondaries for Astra Militarum, Tau and GSC at least or at the very least updated mission secondaries so they weren't all trash or the one auto-take one.
    I think you're missing the point.

    Yes, can you try making your point in another way? I think your point was "I want make your own Land Raider version rules and temporary Relics, you want points and missions, you got what you wanted, I didn't get what I wanted, therefore you are privileged". My point is that, unless the points and missions are balanced then they are not fit for competitive play. Nobody got what they wanted in CA20/CA21, stop saying that competitive players are privileged.


    His point is that the book literally has"Tournament" printed on the cover.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 07:15:29


    Post by: kodos


    Just because GW tries to sell it as "Tournament" Edition does not man it is one

    What GW marketing say a game is, and what the rules really are, are 2 different things

    and of course 40k 9th is marketed at the Tournament Community, for the very reason that GW finally realised that those people throw a lot of money at GW for a changing meta and if GW does not give them the rules to play, they make them on their own

    but this does not make the rules better or more focused on tournaments than the previous version

    In my opinion 5th is still king in tournament play, for the very reason that there were very good community rules for events not related to anything GW tried to sell
    and still would improve tournament games now, but with official event rules available something like this is not an option any more


    PS: and this also caused the problem that people are now going the way that "competitive" and "tournament" play is the same

    were "competitive" play was not related to tournament play in the past, as it just meant using equal victory conditions (no matter if objectiv scoring, Kill Points etc) and without a story behind
    were narritive was much more like "I win if my Gernal survives, you win if your Scouts survive"

    and tournament play was really about playing an event with fixed scenarios, table/terrain setups and additional rules/restrictions specific for that event (like no named units etc.)


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 07:24:38


    Post by: Jidmah


     Sim-Life wrote:
    Well you did spend like half that thread calling people stupid for wanting less convoluted rules. It was a pretty bad look.

    Fair point. Though I stand by my statement that most people whining about 40k being too hard to understand either aren't even trying or want-to-win-always types that are too lazy to invest time.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 07:51:18


    Post by: vict0988


     Sim-Life wrote:
    His point is that the book literally has"Tournament" printed on the cover.


    https://imgur.com/a/juJeF6K

    20 narrative play books 9 matched play books. It's the casual edition, a half-hearted annual points and mission update with "Tournament" printed on the cover does not change that.
     Jidmah wrote:
     Sim-Life wrote:
    Well you did spend like half that thread calling people stupid for wanting less convoluted rules. It was a pretty bad look.

    Fair point. Though I stand by my statement that most people whining about 40k being too hard to understand either aren't even trying or want-to-win-always types that are too lazy to invest time.

    True, I don't want to have to try to study, I want studying to be an elective to become top tier rather than a necessity to avoid gotcha feelsiebadsies.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 07:55:24


    Post by: H.B.M.C.


     vict0988 wrote:
    Yes, can you try making your point in another way?
    I thought I was quite clear, but I will endeavour to help you if you so desire.

     vict0988 wrote:
    I think your point was "I want make your own Land Raider version rules and temporary Relics, you want points and missions, you got what you wanted, I didn't get what I wanted, therefore you are privileged".
    I never said anything even remotely related to that, so I'll just ignore this nonsense...

     vict0988 wrote:
    My point is that, unless the points and missions are balanced then they are not fit for competitive play. Nobody got what they wanted in CA20/CA21, stop saying that competitive players are privileged.
    I never said competitive players are privileged (and that's literally the first time I've typed that word in this thread). In fact, going back over the entire thread, I can't find a single instance of that word being used until you said it. Hell I even searched for the word 'entitled' (and derivations thereof) and couldn't find that either. So, I have to ask, who exactly are you arguing against? 'Cause it sure as feth ain't me...

    But to answer your original request - try making your point in another way - I will say this:

    Chapter Approved used to be about adding things to the game, for all types of game plays. It had FAQs and erratas, it had experimental rules, trail rules, fun additions, new scenarios, campaign ideas, fancy units - hell, even whole army lists! Now, in 9th Ed, we have people (with a straight face) arguing that this isn't Tournament Edition 40k, when Chapter Approved has literally become a paid-for-patch combined with a book called "Grand Tournament".

    Statements such as "unless the points and missions are balanced then they are not fit for competitive play" and "[n]obody got what they wanted in CA20/CA21" don't really address the point as just because GW are bad at it, doesn't mean they aren't doing it (or trying to).

     kodos wrote:
    Just because GW tries to sell it as "Tournament" Edition does not man it is one
    This goes to my point above: It is one because they say it is. If it fails at being a Tournament Edition of 40k, that doesn't matter. That just means it's a terrible tournament game.

    It's still how GW has constructed this edition from its conception. They brought on tournament style missions, objectives and scoring methods. They brought in tournament players to play test it. Their updates have had all creative, experimental and narrative aspects excised to leave a clearly tournament-focused style of update (and they've relegated everything else to very expensive DLC books).

    So you can say things like "but this does not make the rules better or more focused on tournaments than the previous version" all you want, but the first point is irrelevant (never said it was better at being a tournament - it's GW, they're terrible at rules regardless of their focus or intended purpose!), and the latter point is demonstrably false.

     Sim-Life wrote:
    Well you did spend like half that thread calling people stupid for wanting less convoluted rules. It was a pretty bad look.
    And he's doing it again. Straight to the insults. It's like step one on the one-point list of "How to interact with others at Dakka" for him. Anyway, to be less rude by not talking about him and instead addressing him directly:

    Jid, my man, I'm not butthurt about anything you've said. What I am is amused more than anything else, because in a thread about the over-complexity/complicated nature of 40k, your argument against such complexity was "This army only has 49 strats in 7 broad categories!". Again, this was your argument ****against**** the complexity. It was incredible. Never fails to bring a smile to my face.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 08:05:16


    Post by: Jidmah


    I suggest you go read that post you run your mouth about at least once.

    You clearly haven't. Not even half of it.

    The TL;DR of that post was that you need to know less than 20 stratagems to be ready for every possible gotcha both DG and orks could possible throw at you. The reason why that post got that long was because I explained in detail why I thought that way. Responding to that with flat a one-line completely misrepresenting what's in that post is just as impolite as me calling you a donkey.
    So even if you don't give a gak, for god's sake stop spreading false information.

    People intentionally spreading misinformation (and you do that A LOT) deserve to be insulted every single time the do.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     vict0988 wrote:
    True, I don't want to have to try to study, I want studying to be an elective to become top tier rather than a necessity to avoid gotcha feelsiebadsies.


    Plenty solutions for that problem have been discussed.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 08:58:10


    Post by: vict0988


     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    Chapter Approved used to be about adding things to the game, for all types of game plays. It had FAQs and erratas, it had experimental rules, trail rules, fun additions, new scenarios, campaign ideas, fancy units - hell, even whole army lists! Now, in 9th Ed, we have people (with a straight face) arguing that this isn't Tournament Edition 40k, when Chapter Approved has literally become a paid-for-patch combined with a book called "Grand Tournament".

    Competitive players are privileged in the competitive edition, therefore, you are saying that competitive players are privileged in 9th. GW marketing one product to tournament players does not make the entire edition tournament focussed and it really is just marketing as you seem to agree to since you haven't made any defense of the GT mission pack in terms of it being a great product for competitive players. There are three crusade mission packs, so by your metric 9th has to be the crusade edition, although I think that is flawed. The best way to determine what the game is for is what it does well and it does casual play well IMO, it does narrative play well according to some people and it doesn't do competitive play well unless you have a lot of money burning a hole in your pocket and a couple hours a month where you have nothing better to do (like playing or painting) than studying new Stratagems and reviewing old ones for Errata.

     kodos wrote:
    Just because GW tries to sell it as "Tournament" Edition does not man it is one
    This goes to my point above: It is one because they say it is. If it fails at being a Tournament Edition of 40k, that doesn't matter. That just means it's a terrible tournament game.

    It's still how GW has constructed this edition from its conception. They brought on tournament style missions, objectives and scoring methods. They brought in tournament players to play test it. Their updates have had all creative, experimental and narrative aspects excised to leave a clearly tournament-focused style of update (and they've relegated everything else to very expensive DLC books).

    GW has constructed this edition around casual play from its conception. They brought in new ways to play. They ignored competitive players during playtesting and rushed out the points update while updating PLs, leaving pts as imbalanced as PL. CA21, the tournament-focused update, was half-assed while they focussed their time and energy on narrative DLC books and writing narrative rules for new codexes instead.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 09:32:28


    Post by: aphyon


    Chapter Approved used to be about adding things to the game, for all types of game plays. It had FAQs and erratas, it had experimental rules, trail rules, fun additions, new scenarios, campaign ideas, fancy units


    Yep my sexy 3rd ed chapter approved book had the imperial guard armored company rules as well as the rules for shaffer's last chancers...good stuff!


    People intentionally spreading misinformation (and you do that A LOT) deserve to be insulted every single time the do.


    I think purposely insulting people on these forums simply because you disagree with them is kind of against RULE #1 rather you think they deserve it or not.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 09:42:37


    Post by: H.B.M.C.


     vict0988 wrote:
    Competitive players are privileged in the competitive edition, therefore, you are saying that competitive players are privileged in 9th.
    Ok. You seem intent on arguing against some imaginary fellow who is talking about "privileged" players or whatever. That's cool. You do you.

    I on the other hand am done with this, as from where I'm standing you are talking absolute bollocks.

     Jidmah wrote:
    The TL;DR of that post was that you need to know less than 20 stratagems to be ready for every possible gotcha both DG and orks could possible throw at you.
    I know damn well what the point of the post was - it's just an irrelevant point. It's splitting hairs. It's saying "Oh but you don't need half the rules that are there!", and what? The half you're ignoring are still there, and if you don't need them, why are they there? It's just bloat.

     Jidmah wrote:
    Responding to that with flat a one-line completely misrepresenting what's in that post is just as impolite as me calling you a donkey.
    I haven't misrepresented anything. It's called brevity. 40k is a top-heavy and unwieldy nightmare of rules upon rules upon rules. Just because it's better than previous editions - something you're always very keen to point out - doesn't make that problem go away.

     Jidmah wrote:
    People intentionally spreading misinformation (and you do that A LOT) deserve to be insulted every single time the do.
    I do wish you'd go away though...

    aphyon wrote:
    I think purposely insulting people on these forums simply because you disagree with them is kind of against RULE #1 rather you think they deserve it or not.
    And if you're going to do it, at least try to be classy about it. To wit:

    Hey aphyon: feth you!

    See. Much classier.

    (That was a joke, kids, aphyon knows I'm not attaking him)


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 10:03:30


    Post by: aphyon


    And if you're going to do it, at least try to be classy about it. To wit:

    Hey aphyon: feth you!

    See. Much classier.

    (That was a joke, kids, aphyon knows I'm not attaking him)


    Well it isn't like you called me a dirty eldar player...(as he eye's his epic 40K iyanden army)



    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 10:47:21


    Post by: Eldarsif


    I think a lot of rule bloat would disappear if stratagems were less bespoke to a specific unit or that bespoke stratagem was a unit ability on their sheet(that may or may not cost a CP). A stratagem only Retributors can use is technically just a unit ability that costs CP. It's also kind of how they approach "stratagems" in AoS: They are unit command abilities that cost CP.

    Regarding CA having all kinds of stuff it feels like GW has made CA a Matched Play book(I personally like it as it keeps the book small and concise) and all the narrative stuff is in the campaign books. Only thing I don't like is that they release campaign books and Crusade books separate when the two could easily be combined.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 10:53:15


    Post by: Tyel


    Not even really sure what people are arguing about anymore.

    At the fundamental level, people just disagree. This is why we have threads to the tune of "40k is too complicated, you basically need a university degree to play the game, new players will struggle to cope with more than one space marine squad"... and equally threads saying "40k is too simple and boring. My dog can identify the best list/deployment/move/target/stratagems."

    I think when people say its a tournament edition they mean "its a game edition". There's a very clear definition of winners and losers, and this status is determined by doing things that are intrinsically "gamey". Its not a simulation. You are not looking to see "what happens" if a load of Leman Russ ran into a load of Gaunts or something. You don't need lots of rules to try and identify how that scenario would play out.

    Moreover, and in contrast to how we played 3rd as teenagers, you are seemingly discouraged from throwing your models on the table and rolling some dice until the last one standing wins. I mean you can do that - but I feel the rules are more explicit in stating that's not how the game is meant to be played. (And I continue to find people who think 40k still operates this way in other places.)

    Its a bit like saying "isn't AoS still that game with no obvious rules that just descends into a giant moshpit in the middle of the table?" To which you are left going "no, not really, its a fairly tightly defined *game* these days, which people play as *a game* to win according to *the rules*."

    Which then leads into a fight over whether this is a good thing or not. I think these days however pure simulations are definitely out.

    I feel for instance Bolt Action is *a game* - which you play according to the game's rules. Its not meant to serve as a realistically simulation of what would happen if some American soldiers and a Sherman ran into some German soldiers and a Panther or whatever. I think its quite a fun game, especially as a novelty from just playing 40k. But equally I'm not sure there's that much depth because its relatively limited. Eventually you will be left with "the dice will decide". Which I guess isn't so different to 40k - but the bloat provides more potential scenarios to play through before you get there.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 11:55:06


    Post by: the_scotsman


     Daedalus81 wrote:


    I play 40K, because I find those other systems kind of bland. I play WW2 games for the setting and not really for the stats. I don't give a gak about bonuses there as long as a Tiger feels like what a Tiger should feel like. It makes some sense for rifles and LMGs to be the same stat, because getting hit is going to kill you or wound you severely. Not so with a lasgun or heavy bolter hitting a marine. But, I don't need to memorize bolt gun stat lines. My opponent tells me the AP and the damage and that's all I need.


    And despite the absolute visual sins that I delight in inflicting on my opponent's eyeballs when I put my armies down on the table, 40k is feeling increasingly bland and flat to play simply because the 'spectacle' factor of armies on the table only lasts like 5 seconds before you shovel everything back off and put it back in your bag, and everything can be so thoroughly pre-planned that you feel more like youre just punching a whole series of digits into a calculator and adding them up for four hours more so than you are playing a game and making decisions about it.

    All my lists, at this point, are almost entirely 'solved' in the strategy phase. All my units have a plan, and they perform according to that plan allllllllmost all the time - I'd say generally I have about one unit that gets a cheeky unexpected use per game. This last game, it was a succubus - my last model on the table, top of turn 4 - who unexpectedly killed all of the unit she was fighting in my opponent's turn and got to make a run at an Onager to score 2 more bring it down points and finish out the game. often it's 1-2 models from a unit that survive and just, go hide on an objective the rest of the turns they're alive, or they have something they can run up and move block.

    but generally, I end up pre-planning about 3/4 of what I do in your average game of 40k, and it doesnt really change based on mission, opposing army (what, am I gonna run into an opponent that's hard for me to kill?? HAHAHA no I can fling wyches at tanks and MEQs now and murder them no problem)

    The fundamental issue at this point is even if I come up with a satisfying concept for my army (to use an example: an army setup with 3 different wych cult patrols with Lelith Hesperax competing with two rival succubi competing to see who can be the most deadly) it just utterly fails to play out, at all, in the game because everything just evaporates - turn 2, all 3 succubi and wych escorts hop out of their transports, hyper-predictably kill exactly 1 thing each, and then die, instantly, to the very first thing that tries to target them. One of them survives on one wound and hyper-predictably kills a second thing on turn 3, so I guess...she won then. Cool. Great. Forged that narrative.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    Tyel wrote:
    You are not looking to see "what happens" if a load of Leman Russ ran into a load of Gaunts or something. You don't need lots of rules to try and identify how that scenario would play out.

    Moreover, and in contrast to how we played 3rd as teenagers, you are seemingly discouraged from throwing your models on the table and rolling some dice until the last one standing wins. I mean you can do that - but I feel the rules are more explicit in stating that's not how the game is meant to be played. (And I continue to find people who think 40k still operates this way in other places.)


    An activity that some ancient grognards might call "Wargaming"


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 12:07:37


    Post by: kodos


     the_scotsman wrote:

    An activity that some ancient grognards might call "Wargaming"

    but this is the Warhammer Hobby, not the Wargaming Hobby


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 12:10:07


    Post by: Ordana


    TangoTwoBravo wrote:
     Ordana wrote:
    TangoTwoBravo wrote:
    For me, 9th Ed is an improved 8th Ed. Regarding Winters' SEO's video, Matched Play is indeed tighter than 8th Ed. The rules are worded in a more "tight" manner to reduce arguments. The "book" missions are meaningful instead of the meaningless missions of the previous editions.

    I agree with Winters that 8th Ed was more accessible, but I wouldn't say that it is a huge decrease in accessibility. Yes, if a player takes Ad Mech to a tourney for their first game ever they are in for brain melt. You don't have to do that. When I have played a "first game of 9th" for other players I suggest we play 500 to 1000 points with just the datasheet rules and Only War for the mission. Essentially Open Play with the core rules and the datasheets. If my opponent has studied their Codex and want to try some of it out I will say sure - lets use your Faction rules but park Strats for the first game. Then you build.

    9th is much more accessible than the editions before 8th (I played 2nd through 6th). I understand that some have a love for older editions and I trust that people have fun playing the editions that they find fun!
    I simply can't agree with 9th being more accessible then previous editions.

    Back in y old days your units had a stat and weapon profile and so did your opponents units with maybe 1 universal special rule that was in the rulebook for everyone to see. Any unit you never met before was quickly explained and absorbed by simply listing its stat and weapon profile. Now there is an aura in play, faction traits, subfaction traits and statagems.

    9th basic bare minimal rules are a little simpler then previous editions but not even by much. Once you move beyond the basic rulebook accessibility goes down the toilet as layers upon layers get added in quick succession.


    I just pulled my 4th Ed rulebook from the trunk. It has something like 76 pages of dense rules that a new player has to penetrate to get their first game in. 9th Edition core rules has 44 pages with a lower word count per page. That is better accessibility. If a new player tries to play their first game at a tourney then yes, they are in for a rough time. Just like every other edition. 9th Ed is easier to access as a new player than previous editions with the exception of 8th - and that is due to writing rules to mitigate the rules-lawyers.
    page count is your definition for accessibility now?
    I have a 5th edition rulebook nearby (god knows where my 3e and 4th are) Yes it has more pages. Those pages are also full of pictures and diagrams to help visualize the rules.
    Lots of basic rules have not changes that much in all those years. Some things are a little easier now (no templates or vehicle facings) others are harder now (all the lists of what abilities terrain has and what it does, detachments, CP).
    And I did mention 9th's basic rules might be considered slightly easier. But you aren't playing a game without a codex and then accessibility goes out the window fast
    aura's faction traits, sub faction traits, relics, warlord traits and stategems are not 'a tournament thing'. They are part of the standard rules of the game.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     vict0988 wrote:
     Ordana wrote:
    Back in y old days your units had a stat and weapon profile and so did your opponents units with maybe 1 universal special rule that was in the rulebook for everyone to see.

    How far could an Eldar jetbike move?
    5th edition rulebook page 53 'unit types'.
    Jetbikes move as bikes so 12" and Elder jetbikes get to move an extra 6" in the assault phase.

    Right there in the rulebook for everyone to read on a lazy sunday afternoon.
    Was your point that it was harder to know then compared to now where I can show you their profile but then you don't see that they have a special rule to always advance 6" and who knows what stratagem shenanigans?


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 12:26:03


    Post by: Wayniac


    IMHO the problem is and always has been that 40k is trying to be a company level game with huge army level assets. It's trying to appeal to everyone and not being able to specialize.

    They really should have kept 40k as company level and then have Epic (or Apocalypse but Epic had smaller scale so it fit better) for actual large battles where you had huge superheavies and flyers and stuff. It would have been worlds better.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 12:28:14


    Post by: Daedalus81


    yukishiro1 wrote:
    9th edition is quite a bit less accessible than 8th. There's no real arguing with this. The payoff is a better ruleset overall, but there's definitely a cost, particularly when it comes to parsing out the frankly ridiculous levels of rules you can now have. Base rules + single faction rules + single subfaction rules for some factions + extra supplement rules - we're back to 7th edition at this point in terms of needing to spend $200 and spend many hours learning just to get your rules the legal way.


    This is the only stupid part for me - too many books and too many places to look for things. Act 1 is still on sale on the website so here's hoping it's there because enough people didn't buy into it.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     Jidmah wrote:
    I suggest you go read that post you run your mouth about at least once.

    You clearly haven't. Not even half of it.

    The TL;DR of that post was that you need to know less than 20 stratagems to be ready for every possible gotcha both DG and orks could possible throw at you. The reason why that post got that long was because I explained in detail why I thought that way. Responding to that with flat a one-line completely misrepresenting what's in that post is just as impolite as me calling you a donkey.
    So even if you don't give a gak, for god's sake stop spreading false information.

    People intentionally spreading misinformation (and you do that A LOT) deserve to be insulted every single time the do.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     vict0988 wrote:
    True, I don't want to have to try to study, I want studying to be an elective to become top tier rather than a necessity to avoid gotcha feelsiebadsies.


    Plenty solutions for that problem have been discussed.


    I feel your stress - I've deleted several responses throughout various threads recently. The best we can do is just state our case and let it ride. Don't let it get to you if you can.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 12:44:32


    Post by: PenitentJake


     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    You choosing to play Crusade exclusively doesn't change the fact that this edition was designed around tournament play. It took elements from existing tournaments and just made them part of the core rules.

    You can split hairs and say "Oh, but that's just matched play!" all you want, but in the end that's how most people interface with this game.

    This is Tournament Edition 40k.


    What parts of the core rules were designed for tournament play? Be specific here.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 12:47:18


    Post by: Wayniac


    PenitentJake wrote:
     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    You choosing to play Crusade exclusively doesn't change the fact that this edition was designed around tournament play. It took elements from existing tournaments and just made them part of the core rules.

    You can split hairs and say "Oh, but that's just matched play!" all you want, but in the end that's how most people interface with this game.

    This is Tournament Edition 40k.


    What parts of the core rules were designed for tournament play? Be specific here.
    Secondaries are totally lifted from the ITC secondary objectives. I believe some of the terrain rules as well. They basically took the ITC stuff and adopted it for matched play.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 12:54:22


    Post by: Daedalus81


     the_scotsman wrote:
     Daedalus81 wrote:


    I play 40K, because I find those other systems kind of bland. I play WW2 games for the setting and not really for the stats. I don't give a gak about bonuses there as long as a Tiger feels like what a Tiger should feel like. It makes some sense for rifles and LMGs to be the same stat, because getting hit is going to kill you or wound you severely. Not so with a lasgun or heavy bolter hitting a marine. But, I don't need to memorize bolt gun stat lines. My opponent tells me the AP and the damage and that's all I need.


    And despite the absolute visual sins that I delight in inflicting on my opponent's eyeballs when I put my armies down on the table, 40k is feeling increasingly bland and flat to play simply because the 'spectacle' factor of armies on the table only lasts like 5 seconds before you shovel everything back off and put it back in your bag, and everything can be so thoroughly pre-planned that you feel more like youre just punching a whole series of digits into a calculator and adding them up for four hours more so than you are playing a game and making decisions about it.

    All my lists, at this point, are almost entirely 'solved' in the strategy phase. All my units have a plan, and they perform according to that plan allllllllmost all the time - I'd say generally I have about one unit that gets a cheeky unexpected use per game. This last game, it was a succubus - my last model on the table, top of turn 4 - who unexpectedly killed all of the unit she was fighting in my opponent's turn and got to make a run at an Onager to score 2 more bring it down points and finish out the game. often it's 1-2 models from a unit that survive and just, go hide on an objective the rest of the turns they're alive, or they have something they can run up and move block.

    but generally, I end up pre-planning about 3/4 of what I do in your average game of 40k, and it doesnt really change based on mission, opposing army (what, am I gonna run into an opponent that's hard for me to kill?? HAHAHA no I can fling wyches at tanks and MEQs now and murder them no problem)

    The fundamental issue at this point is even if I come up with a satisfying concept for my army (to use an example: an army setup with 3 different wych cult patrols with Lelith Hesperax competing with two rival succubi competing to see who can be the most deadly) it just utterly fails to play out, at all, in the game because everything just evaporates - turn 2, all 3 succubi and wych escorts hop out of their transports, hyper-predictably kill exactly 1 thing each, and then die, instantly, to the very first thing that tries to target them. One of them survives on one wound and hyper-predictably kills a second thing on turn 3, so I guess...she won then. Cool. Great. Forged that narrative.


    I would say your experience is isolated to your army. It's too easy to play and that gets boring. GW very clearly needs to do something about DE. I don't know what that next step should be, but I'd love to hear your thoughts, because DE sticking to the top is getting tiresome. I haven't had the luxury of playing DE with TS and I'm unsure what GK is capable of in that regard either ( and not enough data yet ).


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    Wayniac wrote:
    Secondaries are totally lifted from the ITC secondary objectives. I believe some of the terrain rules as well. They basically took the ITC stuff and adopted it for matched play.


    We've had secondaries in the past through maelstrom - they're just not random now. And good terrain is useful for all types of play.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 13:03:19


    Post by: Slipspace


    TangoTwoBravo wrote:

    I just pulled my 4th Ed rulebook from the trunk. It has something like 76 pages of dense rules that a new player has to penetrate to get their first game in. 9th Edition core rules has 44 pages with a lower word count per page. That is better accessibility.


    I don't think page count is the only measure of accessibility, nor even the most important one. The major advantage of the structure of the rules pre-8th edition (or maybe pre-7th formations) was that all the rules you were likely to need regularly were in the basic rulebook. A player could read that and have a good understanding of the basic game and how an opponent's army worked because so much less of the rules were hidden away in strats and faction bonuses and sub-faction rules. In 5th I could look at a unit I'd never seen before, check the USRs and its statline and have a good idea of what to expect in the game. There were also generally fewer special rules specific to each unit or army. It also meant figuring out your own army was generally pretty simple once you got the Codex.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 13:08:35


    Post by: kirotheavenger


    I wouldn't exactly say old Maelstrom were secondary objectives.

    Previously secondary objectives were First Blood, Slay the Warlord, and Linebreaker, which were consistent across all missions.
    I remember back then getting first turn didn't guarantee First Blood! Oh how the lethality has increased since then!

    I find Secondaries as they are now are great for tournament play - it gives you plenty to sink your teeth into and leverage.
    But terrible for casual players - if you don't want to get that deep into the game it's a lot to have to deal with.

    Terrain is similar. My local store has lots of awesome custom terrain, so using the keywords Gw assigned to their products doesn't work, because they helpfully refuse the acknowledge the existence of anything outside of their own webstore.
    But also no one can be bothered with a lengthy negotiation about what keywords terrain should have, let alone trying to remember it all. The result of this is 90% of terrain is all just Obscuring Light cover.
    So again, these new terrain rules are mostly a waste.
    A better solution would be to establish ~3 very broad categories of terrain (eg hard, soft, and area) and let players decide.
    But that would be tacitly acknowledging other wargaming products exist and GW can't be having that!


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 13:09:48


    Post by: PenitentJake


    SECONDARIES ARE NOT CORE RULES!

    THEY ARE NOT USED IN OPEN OR CRUSADE!


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 13:13:04


    Post by: kirotheavenger


    That sort of hits another point; what are core rules?

    GW says the core rules are the ~8 pages that tell you how to move and shoot and pretty much nothing more.

    That's pretty ridiculous as games consist of many more rules than that.
    IMO, Matched Play rules are core rules. They're a huge part of the games that most players play by, my own groups even apply Matched rules to their Crusade games because stuff like strategem use limits are pretty crucial to the balance of the game.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 13:21:51


    Post by: Sim-Life


    PenitentJake wrote:
    SECONDARIES ARE NOT CORE RULES!

    THEY ARE NOT USED IN OPEN OR CRUSADE!


    And people keep telling you that Matched Play is overwhelminingly the prefered method of organising games. It doesn't matter how much of a boner YOU PERSONALLY have for Crusade, it doesn't apply to most people. Even a lot of people who DO play Crusade use a Matched play framework to organise their games.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 13:28:48


    Post by: Daedalus81


     kirotheavenger wrote:
    I wouldn't exactly say old Maelstrom were secondary objectives.

    Previously secondary objectives were First Blood, Slay the Warlord, and Linebreaker, which were consistent across all missions.
    I remember back then getting first turn didn't guarantee First Blood! Oh how the lethality has increased since then!


    Funny you should say that, because you'd have a real hard time getting first blood now, too.

    A better solution would be to establish ~3 very broad categories of terrain (eg hard, soft, and area) and let players decide.
    But that would be tacitly acknowledging other wargaming products exist and GW can't be having that!


    That's pretty much what you have now ( as I define it, anyway ) - dense, obscuring, and obstacles. Most of the rules just improve the way specific models interact with terrain e.g. Can't stand here / Can climb over or through / no cover.

    And it's really quite intuitive. If you're behind crates - cover. Standing on top? You're exposed - no cover. You can move through walls, but blowing a hole through a stack of crates isn't as easy. Hopping over something or the ground looks rough? That's difficult.

    GW rules encompass any terrain. Do you think they would make bespoke rules for your local terrain? No, they gave a system that can be applied in whatever way you want.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 13:29:13


    Post by: chaos0xomega


    Am I the only one who wishes GW would just bring back the old force org rules (1-2 HQ, 0-3 Elites, 2-6 Troops, 0-3 Fast Attack, 0-3 Heavy Support) and do away with the detachment system? Points are never going to be effective at balancing the game if you basically have no constraints for them to shape list-building to. The introduction of the "rule of 3" (which now goes to rule of 4 at certain points levels I guess) was necessitated by the lack of limitation on ones ability to spam (typically non-troop) units and the inability of repeat points adjustments to curtail the balance issues resulting from it. Easier to just cut out the middleman and do away with the entire listbuilding concept as it currently exists, you wouldn't need the rule of 3 if armies were capped at only being able to take 3 of any one slot type. I, for one, also miss the mandatory troop tax - in general I would like to see lists with more troops in them, not less.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 13:35:40


    Post by: Daedalus81


    chaos0xomega wrote:
    Am I the only one who wishes GW would just bring back the old force org rules (1-2 HQ, 0-3 Elites, 2-6 Troops, 0-3 Fast Attack, 0-3 Heavy Support) and do away with the detachment system? Points are never going to be effective at balancing the game if you basically have no constraints for them to shape list-building to. The introduction of the "rule of 3" (which now goes to rule of 4 at certain points levels I guess) was necessitated by the lack of limitation on ones ability to spam (typically non-troop) units and the inability of repeat points adjustments to curtail the balance issues resulting from it. Easier to just cut out the middleman and do away with the entire listbuilding concept as it currently exists, you wouldn't need the rule of 3 if armies were capped at only being able to take 3 of any one slot type. I, for one, also miss the mandatory troop tax - in general I would like to see lists with more troops in them, not less.


    Disagree. Not all armies are functionally the same. There were plenty of bespoke rules for armies to circumvent the old force orgs. The new rules address all that and provide a tax on flexibility. To say there are no constraints is false.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 13:50:56


    Post by: Slipspace


    chaos0xomega wrote:
    Am I the only one who wishes GW would just bring back the old force org rules (1-2 HQ, 0-3 Elites, 2-6 Troops, 0-3 Fast Attack, 0-3 Heavy Support) and do away with the detachment system? Points are never going to be effective at balancing the game if you basically have no constraints for them to shape list-building to. The introduction of the "rule of 3" (which now goes to rule of 4 at certain points levels I guess) was necessitated by the lack of limitation on ones ability to spam (typically non-troop) units and the inability of repeat points adjustments to curtail the balance issues resulting from it. Easier to just cut out the middleman and do away with the entire listbuilding concept as it currently exists, you wouldn't need the rule of 3 if armies were capped at only being able to take 3 of any one slot type. I, for one, also miss the mandatory troop tax - in general I would like to see lists with more troops in them, not less.


    I think that would be a very good starting place to help balance things out a bit, yes. There's a huge lack of genuine decision-making when it comes to building armies right now. Previously you had to make some pretty tough decisions about which units/characters to bring.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 13:52:13


    Post by: chaos0xomega


    What constraints exist are inadequate. Points are not a balancing mechanic, they are a shaping mechanic. In an asymmetric game where you have considerations such as faction identity and playstyle,100 points of x is not equal to 100 point of y. Points exist to incentivize the use of certain items (units, weapons, etc.) over others in order to enable a certain flavor and playstyle, they can only successfully achieve this within the context of external restrictions which place additional limitations on how those points can be allocated and spent, otherwise a points system boils down to essentially spamming the most point-efficient options available in order to maximize capability. As it currently stands the constraints, aside from the rule of three, are too open-ended to adequately constrain points allocation away from selection of "most optimal" options available. Force Org constraints forced players to select less optimal options by heavily restricting numbers/types of options available when making selections, as well as forcing players to make choices as to what secondary considerations (beyond pure points efficiency) to prioritize for each slot/category available to them.

    What bespoke rules existed in the past to cricumvent force org restrictions were limited and flavorful and rewarded playing to a certain playstyle. Giving faction x access to a 4th heavy support slot or faction y the ability to field an elites choice as a troops choice given investment into a specific special character was hardly an issue, as it was easy to design and balance around those specific allowances, whereas the current more open-ended approach effectively prevents you from doing the same.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 14:13:04


    Post by: PenitentJake


     Sim-Life wrote:
    PenitentJake wrote:
    SECONDARIES ARE NOT CORE RULES!

    THEY ARE NOT USED IN OPEN OR CRUSADE!


    And people keep telling you that Matched Play is overwhelminingly the prefered method of organising games. It doesn't matter how much of a boner YOU PERSONALLY have for Crusade, it doesn't apply to most people. Even a lot of people who DO play Crusade use a Matched play framework to organise their games.


    But in what universe does that mean that the edition as a whole was designed for tournament players?

    This is what I am disputing.

    I am not disputing that Matched play was designed for tournament play with input from tournament players.

    I am not disputing that matched play is the most popular mode of play among Dakkanauts. Heck, I won't even bother disputing that Matched play is the most popular method of play among the entire player base; I could- there's zero evidence to support the statement, but I won't bother, because it is irrelevant.

    I'm really not sure why so many people are being so obtuse. We all agree that Matched was designed for tournament play. We all agree that Matched play is most popular among Dakkanauts and I'm even willing to compromise and meet everyone half way and say that it may be the most popular way to play period- despite a profound lack of evidence to prove that point.

    NONE OF THAT MEANS THE EDITION AS A WHOLE WAS DESIGNED FOR TOURNAMENT PLAY. PERIOD.

    In order for the edition as a whole to be classified as being designed for tournament play, you have to prove that either a) specific pieces of Open and Crusade were designed for tournament play or b) that you can't choose to play only Open or Crusade. Neither of these things can be proven. Therefore the edition as a whole was not designed for tournament play.

    That's it. No value judgement. No pissing contest about right or wrong. Simple semantics. It's how language works.




    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 15:02:41


    Post by: Daedalus81


    chaos0xomega wrote:
    What constraints exist are inadequate. Points are not a balancing mechanic, they are a shaping mechanic. In an asymmetric game where you have considerations such as faction identity and playstyle,100 points of x is not equal to 100 point of y. Points exist to incentivize the use of certain items (units, weapons, etc.) over others in order to enable a certain flavor and playstyle, they can only successfully achieve this within the context of external restrictions which place additional limitations on how those points can be allocated and spent, otherwise a points system boils down to essentially spamming the most point-efficient options available in order to maximize capability. As it currently stands the constraints, aside from the rule of three, are too open-ended to adequately constrain points allocation away from selection of "most optimal" options available. Force Org constraints forced players to select less optimal options by heavily restricting numbers/types of options available when making selections, as well as forcing players to make choices as to what secondary considerations (beyond pure points efficiency) to prioritize for each slot/category available to them.

    What bespoke rules existed in the past to cricumvent force org restrictions were limited and flavorful and rewarded playing to a certain playstyle. Giving faction x access to a 4th heavy support slot or faction y the ability to field an elites choice as a troops choice given investment into a specific special character was hardly an issue, as it was easy to design and balance around those specific allowances, whereas the current more open-ended approach effectively prevents you from doing the same.


    That's not how it works out. You still have to play objectives. But let's see what lists fit into the old force org:

    This is 3 HQ, 6 Troops, 2 Elite, 2 Fast, and 3 Heavy. Do you really thing that extra HQ is breaking it wide open?
    Spoiler:
    + HQ +

    Skitarii Marshal [3 PL, 45pts]: Mechanicus Locum, Relic: Exemplar's Eternity, Warlord Trait (Codex 3): Programmed Retreat

    Tech-Priest Manipulus [6 PL, 105pts]: Logi, Magnarail lance, Relic (Lucius): The Solar Flare, WARLORD, Warlord Trait (Lucius): Luminescent Blessings

    Tech-Priest Manipulus [5 PL, 95pts]: Artisans, Magnarail lance, Relic: Raiment of the Technomartyr

    + Troops +

    Skitarii Rangers [8 PL, 170pts]: Enhanced Data-Tether, Omnispex
    . Ranger Alpha: Galvanic Rifle
    . 19x Skitarii Ranger: 19x Galvanic Rifle

    Skitarii Rangers [8 PL, 170pts]: Enhanced Data-Tether, Omnispex
    . Ranger Alpha: Galvanic Rifle
    . 19x Skitarii Ranger: 19x Galvanic Rifle

    Skitarii Rangers [8 PL, 170pts]: Enhanced Data-Tether, Omnispex
    . Ranger Alpha: Galvanic Rifle
    . 19x Skitarii Ranger: 19x Galvanic Rifle

    Skitarii Rangers [8 PL, 170pts]: Enhanced Data-Tether, Omnispex
    . Ranger Alpha: Galvanic Rifle
    . 19x Skitarii Ranger: 19x Galvanic Rifle

    Skitarii Vanguards [8 PL, 170pts]: Enhanced Data-Tether, Omnispex
    . 19x Skitarii Vanguard: 19x Radium Carbine
    . Vanguard Alpha: Radium Carbine

    Skitarii Vanguards [8 PL, 170pts]: Enhanced Data-Tether, Omnispex
    . 19x Skitarii Vanguard: 19x Radium Carbine
    . Vanguard Alpha: Radium Carbine

    + Elites +

    Sicarian Infiltrators [8 PL, 119pts]
    . Infiltrator Princeps (Flechette/Taser): Artefactotum, Relic: Temporcopia
    . 6x Sicarian Infiltrator (Flechette/Taser): 6x Flechette Blaster, 6x Taser Goad

    Sicarian Infiltrators [4 PL, 85pts]
    . Infiltrator Princeps (Flechette/Taser)
    . 4x Sicarian Infiltrator (Flechette/Taser): 4x Flechette Blaster, 4x Taser Goad

    + Fast Attack +

    Serberys Raiders [2 PL, 48pts]: Serberys Raider Alpha
    . 2x Serberys Raider: 2x Cavalry Sabre, 2x Clawed Limbs, 2x Galvanic Carbine

    Serberys Raiders [2 PL, 48pts]: Serberys Raider Alpha
    . 2x Serberys Raider: 2x Cavalry Sabre, 2x Clawed Limbs, 2x Galvanic Carbine

    + Heavy Support +

    Skorpius Disintegrator [8 PL, 145pts]: Belleros Energy Cannon

    Skorpius Disintegrator [8 PL, 145pts]: Belleros Energy Cannon

    Skorpius Disintegrator [8 PL, 145pts]: Belleros Energy Cannon



    2 No Org, 4 HQ, 4 Troops, 3 Elites, 2 Fast, 1 Heavy, 5 Transport

    That Court and HQ starts to bust things up a bit, but remember how certain HQs could take retinues? Same deal. So perhaps there's a value with DE, but do you remember the Baron? He made all Hellions Troops.

    Spoiler:
    + No Force Org Slot [20 PL, 272pts] +

    Court of the Archon [10 PL, 136pts]
    . Sslyth [18pts]: Shardcarbine, Splinter Pistol, Sslyth battle-blade
    . Sslyth [18pts]: Shardcarbine, Splinter Pistol, Sslyth battle-blade
    . Sslyth [18pts]: Shardcarbine, Splinter Pistol, Sslyth battle-blade
    . Sslyth [18pts]: Shardcarbine, Splinter Pistol, Sslyth battle-blade
    . Ur-Ghul [16pts]: Ur-Ghul Talons
    . Ur-Ghul [16pts]: Ur-Ghul Talons
    . Ur-Ghul [16pts]: Ur-Ghul Talons
    . Ur-Ghul [16pts]: Ur-Ghul Talons

    Court of the Archon [10 PL, 136pts]
    . Sslyth [18pts]: Shardcarbine, Splinter Pistol, Sslyth battle-blade
    . Sslyth [18pts]: Shardcarbine, Splinter Pistol, Sslyth battle-blade
    . Sslyth [18pts]: Shardcarbine, Splinter Pistol, Sslyth battle-blade
    . Sslyth [18pts]: Shardcarbine, Splinter Pistol, Sslyth battle-blade
    . Ur-Ghul [16pts]: Ur-Ghul Talons
    . Ur-Ghul [16pts]: Ur-Ghul Talons
    . Ur-Ghul [16pts]: Ur-Ghul Talons
    . Ur-Ghul [16pts]: Ur-Ghul Talons

    + HQ [9 PL, -1CP, 150pts] +

    Archon [4 PL, 65pts]: Ancient Evil, Overlord, Power sword, Splinter Pistol, Warlord, Writ of the Living Muse

    Archon [5 PL, -1CP, 85pts]: Hatred Eternal, Huskblade [5pts], Overlord, Splinter Pistol, Stratagem: Tolerated Ambition [-1CP], The Djin Blade
    . Splintered Genius (Black Heart) [1 PL, 15pts]: Splintered Genius [1 PL, 15pts]

    + Troops [8 PL, 140pts] +

    Kabalite Trueborn [8 PL, 140pts]
    . 6x Kabalite Trueborn [60pts]: 6x Splinter Rifle
    . Kabalite Trueborn w/ Heavy Weapon [25pts]: Dark Lance [15pts]
    . Kabalite Trueborn w/ Special Weapon [20pts]: Blaster [10pts]
    . Kabalite Trueborn w/ Special Weapon [20pts]: Blaster [10pts]
    . Trueborn Sybarite [15pts]: Blast Pistol [5pts]

    + Elites [3 PL, 75pts] +

    Mandrakes [3 PL, 75pts]
    . 4x Mandrake [60pts]: 4x Baleblast, 4x Glimmersteel Blade
    . Nightfiend [15pts]: Baleblast, Glimmersteel Blade

    + Fast Attack [10 PL, 160pts] +

    Scourges [5 PL, 80pts]
    . Scourge with Special / Heavy weapon [17pts]: Plasma Grenades, Shredder [5pts]
    . Scourge with Special / Heavy weapon [17pts]: Plasma Grenades, Shredder [5pts]
    . Scourge with Special / Heavy weapon [17pts]: Plasma Grenades, Shredder [5pts]
    . Scourge with Special / Heavy weapon [17pts]: Plasma Grenades, Shredder [5pts]
    . Solarite [12pts]: Plasma Grenades, Shardcarbine

    Scourges [5 PL, 80pts]
    . Scourge with Special / Heavy weapon [17pts]: Plasma Grenades, Shredder [5pts]
    . Scourge with Special / Heavy weapon [17pts]: Plasma Grenades, Shredder [5pts]
    . Scourge with Special / Heavy weapon [17pts]: Plasma Grenades, Shredder [5pts]
    . Scourge with Special / Heavy weapon [17pts]: Plasma Grenades, Shredder [5pts]
    . Solarite [12pts]: Plasma Grenades, Shardcarbine

    ++ Patrol Detachment 0CP (Aeldari - Drukhari) [64 PL, 1,090pts] ++

    + Configuration +

    Detachment Command Cost

    Obsession
    . *Custom Coven*: Dark Technomancers (All-Consuming)

    Raiding Forces - CP Refund

    + HQ [8 PL, 145pts] +

    Drazhar [8 PL, 145pts]: The Executioner's Demiklaives

    + Troops [6 PL, 80pts] +

    Wracks [3 PL, 40pts]
    . Acothyst [8pts]: Wrack Blade
    . 4x Wracks [32pts]: 4x Wrack Blade

    Wracks [3 PL, 40pts]
    . Acothyst [8pts]: Wrack Blade
    . 4x Wracks [32pts]: 4x Wrack Blade

    + Elites [8 PL, 160pts] +

    Incubi [4 PL, 80pts]
    . 4x Incubi [64pts]: 4x Klaive
    . Klaivex [16pts]: Klaive

    Incubi [4 PL, 80pts]
    . 4x Incubi [64pts]: 4x Klaive
    . Klaivex [16pts]: Klaive

    + Heavy Support [12 PL, 230pts] +

    Cronos [12 PL, 230pts]
    . Cronos [4 PL, 80pts]: Spirit Syphon, Spirit Vortex [10pts], Spirit-Leech Tentacles
    . Cronos [4 PL, 80pts]: Spirit Syphon, Spirit Vortex [10pts], Spirit-Leech Tentacles
    . Cronos [4 PL, 70pts]: Spirit Syphon, Spirit-Leech Tentacles

    + Dedicated Transport [30 PL, 475pts] +

    Raider [6 PL, 95pts]: Bladevanes, Dark Lance

    Raider [6 PL, 95pts]: Bladevanes, Dark Lance

    Raider [6 PL, 95pts]: Bladevanes, Dark Lance

    Raider [6 PL, 95pts]: Bladevanes, Dark Lance

    Raider [6 PL, 95pts]: Bladevanes, Dark Lance

    ++ Patrol Detachment 0CP (Aeldari - Drukhari) [6 PL, -2CP, 110pts] ++

    + Configuration +

    Detachment Command Cost

    Obsession: Cult of Strife: The Spectacle of Murder (Restricted)

    Raiding Forces - CP Refund

    + Stratagems [-1CP] +

    Stratagem: Prizes from the Dark City [-1CP]: Additional Relics [-1CP]

    + HQ [3 PL, -1CP, 60pts] +

    Succubus [3 PL, -1CP, 60pts]: 1 - Adrenalight (Combat Drug), Competitive Edge, Stratagem: Tolerated Ambition [-1CP], The Triptych Whip
    . Agoniser & Archite Glaive: Agoniser, Archite Glaive

    + Troops [3 PL, 50pts] +

    Wyches [3 PL, 50pts]: 3 - Hypex (Combat Drug)
    . Hekatrix [10pts]: Hekatarii Blade, Plasma Grenades, Splinter Pistol
    . 4x Wych [40pts]: 4x Hekatarii Blade, 4x Plasma Grenades, 4x Splinter Pistol

    ++ Total: [120 PL, 8CP, 1,997pts] ++


    3 HQ, 3 Troops, 5 Elite, 2 Heavy, 1 Transport

    Remember how Master of the Forge could turn dreadnoughts into Heavy? That'd put them over a bit, but nothing a little shifting can't solve.

    Spoiler:
    + HQ +

    Lieutenants [4 PL, 75pts]
    . Lieutenant in Reiver Armour: Target Protocols, The Vox Espiritum, Warlord

    Primaris Librarian [5 PL, 95pts]: 1) Blessing of the Machine God, 4) Psysteel Armor

    Primaris Techmarine [4 PL, 80pts]



    + Troops +

    Assault Intercessor Squad [5 PL, 95pts]
    . 4x Assault Intercessor: 4x Astartes Chainsword, 4x Frag & Krak grenades, 4x Heavy Bolt Pistol
    . Assault Intercessor Sgt: Astartes Chainsword, Heavy Bolt Pistol

    Assault Intercessor Squad [5 PL, 95pts]
    . 4x Assault Intercessor: 4x Astartes Chainsword, 4x Frag & Krak grenades, 4x Heavy Bolt Pistol
    . Assault Intercessor Sgt: Astartes Chainsword, Heavy Bolt Pistol



    Incursor Squad [5 PL, 105pts]
    . 4x Incursor: 4x Bolt pistol, 4x Frag & Krak grenades, 4x Occulus bolt carbine, 4x Paired combat blades
    . Incursor Sergeant



    + Elites +

    Redemptor Dreadnought [9 PL, 185pts]: 2x Storm Bolters, Icarus Rocket Pod, Macro Plasma Incinerator, Onslaught Gatling Cannon

    Relic Contemptor Dreadnought [8 PL, -3CP, 175pts]: Cyclone missile launcher, Merciless Logic, Stratagem: Hero of the Chapter, Stratagem: March of the Ancients, 2x Twin volkite culverin

    Relic Contemptor Dreadnought [8 PL, -1CP, 175pts]: Cyclone missile launcher, 2x Twin volkite culverin



    Vanguard Veteran Squad [14 PL, 270pts]: Jump Pack
    . Vanguard Veteran: Lightning Claw, Storm shield
    . Vanguard Veteran: Lightning Claw, Storm shield
    . Vanguard Veteran: Lightning Claw, Storm shield
    . Vanguard Veteran: Lightning Claw, Storm shield
    . Vanguard Veteran: Astartes Chainsword, Lightning Claw
    . Vanguard Veteran: Astartes Chainsword, Lightning Claw
    . Vanguard Veteran: Astartes Chainsword, Lightning Claw
    . Vanguard Veteran: Astartes Chainsword, Lightning Claw
    . Vanguard Veteran: Astartes Chainsword, Lightning Claw
    . Vanguard Veteran Sergeant: Astartes Chainsword, Lightning Claw, Master-Crafted Weapon



    Vanguard Veteran Squad [14 PL, 270pts]: Jump Pack
    . Vanguard Veteran: Lightning Claw, Storm shield
    . Vanguard Veteran: Lightning Claw, Storm shield
    . Vanguard Veteran: Lightning Claw, Storm shield
    . Vanguard Veteran: Lightning Claw, Storm shield
    . Vanguard Veteran: Astartes Chainsword, Lightning Claw
    . Vanguard Veteran: Astartes Chainsword, Lightning Claw
    . Vanguard Veteran: Astartes Chainsword, Lightning Claw
    . Vanguard Veteran: Astartes Chainsword, Lightning Claw
    . Vanguard Veteran: Astartes Chainsword, Lightning Claw
    . Vanguard Veteran Sergeant: Astartes Chainsword, Lightning Claw



    + Heavy Support +

    Devastator Squad [8 PL, 155pts]: Armorium Cherub
    . Devastator Marine Sergeant: Bolt pistol, Boltgun
    . Devastator Marine w/Heavy Weapon: Grav-cannon
    . Devastator Marine w/Heavy Weapon: Grav-cannon
    . Devastator Marine w/Heavy Weapon: Multi-melta
    . Devastator Marine w/Heavy Weapon: Multi-melta



    Devastator Squad [8 PL, 155pts]: Armorium Cherub
    . Devastator Marine Sergeant: Bolt pistol, Boltgun
    . Devastator Marine w/Heavy Weapon: Grav-cannon
    . Devastator Marine w/Heavy Weapon: Grav-cannon
    . Devastator Marine w/Heavy Weapon: Multi-melta
    . Devastator Marine w/Heavy Weapon: Multi-melta



    + Dedicated Transport +

    Drop Pod [4 PL, 70pts]: Storm bolter


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 15:10:51


    Post by: Tyel


     the_scotsman wrote:
    An activity that some ancient grognards might call "Wargaming"


    Can't work out if this is a positive or negative observation.

    =====

    I can't see anything positive about returning to the old force org. I don't see how it would improve any aspect of the game.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 15:11:00


    Post by: the_scotsman


     Daedalus81 wrote:


    I would say your experience is isolated to your army. It's too easy to play and that gets boring. GW very clearly needs to do something about DE. I don't know what that next step should be, but I'd love to hear your thoughts, because DE sticking to the top is getting tiresome. I haven't had the luxury of playing DE with TS and I'm unsure what GK is capable of in that regard either ( and not enough data yet ).


    No, it super isn't just isolated to my DE, it's all my armies but especially the weaker/underpowered ones.

    GSC: Everything I put down on the table must be hidden out of LOS during deployment or it can and will be instantly destroyed turn 1. Everything in reserves must deep strike turn 2 or it'll essentially have arrived too late to do anything to influence the course of the game, which is over for all intents and purposes by top of turn 3. 5CP/12 is essentially accounted for at the beginning of a game, as I have never not used both A Perfect Ambush and Lying In Wait.

    Grots: all the movement in my grot army is pre-determined - dreads advance towards the enemy, kanz and tanks move towards the enemy and shoot rokkits at elites/tanks, buzzgob always gives +1 to hit to kanz turn 1 and either to kanz or dread turn 2 if kanz are dead, Ghaz always calls waagh turn 2 into turn 3, the only thing that varies is what objectives the min grot squads are trying to sneak onto and which actions theyre performing.

    Harlequins: everything tries to hide out of LOS again in deployment, all transports try to move towards an enemy elite/character/vehicle and shoot melta pistols at them, haywire bikes jump over terrain and try to haywire something, turn 2 everything wants to be in melee combat and empty transports move to cover objectives.

    There's no 'narrative' to any given game because 3/4 of at least one player's army is just dead by top of 3. the average number of actions/decision points you get with any given unit is 1.25, maybe 1.5 if your army is really designed to have staying power.

    It doesn't matter how much I try to set up interesting funky scenarios, that's just always how it turns out. Buddy wants to bring chaos knights against my admech+knights and have a cool robot smackdown? the game goes like this:

    -chaos knight charges across the whole board, charges my knight, kills it instantly
    -all my opponent's shooting goes into a helverin, kills it instantly
    -all my shooting goes into the chaos knight that killed my knight, kills it
    -my max-size unit of punchy robots rolls into a chaos knight midboard, kills it instantly
    -all my opponent's shooting goes into the max size unit of punchy robots, kills all of them, then a knight charges into the other helverin, killing it instantly.
    -all my shooting goes into a wardog, kills it
    -all my opponent's shooting kills my onager - I have a techpriest and a unit of shooty robots left, we call the game, top of 3.

    it's not like this was better in 7th, either, when the knight swords were D-weapons so a wraithknight vs knight duel would just look like the WK always swinging first cus higher initiative and then having the damage to one-shot the knight 3 times over, but it's just always been so sad when you compare the way an epic duel between giant robots goes in 40k compared to a system like Titanicus, where something getting critted and destroyed instantly is this crazy "OH gak" once in a game moment, instead of just...the expected outcome of anything shooting or charging anything else.

    This level of lethality works great for a fast-moving card game or an RPG where you want combat to be smooth and easy to resolve but it's absolute misery in a hobby where you want rules to represent a unit you spent a combined total of 20 hours painstakingly painting up.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 15:15:30


    Post by: H.B.M.C.


    chaos0xomega wrote:
    Am I the only one who wishes GW would just bring back the old force org rules (1-2 HQ, 0-3 Elites, 2-6 Troops, 0-3 Fast Attack, 0-3 Heavy Support) and do away with the detachment system?
    You're not. 7th ruined the FOC by the inclusion of Formations. 8th further kept the FOC meaningless by letting you just take more detachments so you could still bring whatever you wanted.

    9th at least had the sense to make detachments cost CP, but then gave everyone more CP, and had CP regenerate during the game.

    I'd make a new FOC:

    2-4 HQ
    0-6 Elite
    3-8 Troops
    0-4 FA
    0-4 HS
    0-2 Flyer
    0-3 Fortification
    0-X Dedicated Transports

    And either leave it at that, or make you pay per FOC for extras. No extra detachments.

    As for Rule of Three, it's a solution to an old problem that somehow still lingers in this game. So many units have their own datasheet or come in squadrons, that Rule of Three doesn't really matter. I believe the entire impetus for the Rule of Three were Tyranid armies bringing multiple flying Hive Tyrants in Supreme Command detachments. Well, the 5 HQ Supreme Command detachment doesn't exist, and Flying HTs are scarcely viable... so why do we need that rule anymore?


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 15:15:31


    Post by: Rhia_Stadtfeld


    Been giving it some thought the past couple days as I've been reading some relatively heated responses.

    But my 2 cents is "Peak 40k" is the people you play with, less so the system.

    I think there's a lot to be said about the approach / response of people in correlation to fun.

    That said, I think the appeal of 9th to me - is crusade - as I like more narrative battles, though as advised I'm gonna muck about with a few basic 500 matched lists and get a handle on things.

    Would I play 4th and 3rd and 2nd still, for nostalgias sake, absolutely.

    Id not say "peak" is a specific system and more just having a chilled out bunch of players that enjoy the hobby, whatever edition it came to them in.

    On that note, I'm gonna go watch some more winters video's.



    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 15:24:39


    Post by: vict0988


     Ordana wrote:
     vict0988 wrote:
     Ordana wrote:
    Back in y old days your units had a stat and weapon profile and so did your opponents units with maybe 1 universal special rule that was in the rulebook for everyone to see.

    How far could an Eldar jetbike move?
    5th edition rulebook page 53 'unit types'.
    Jetbikes move as bikes so 12" and Elder jetbikes get to move an extra 6" in the assault phase.

    Right there in the rulebook for everyone to read on a lazy sunday afternoon.
    Was your point that it was harder to know then compared to now where I can show you their profile but then you don't see that they have a special rule to always advance 6" and who knows what stratagem shenanigans?

    I think certain unit types coming with certain abilities and stats like M6/12, JSJ or Hammer of Wrath was dumb because you sometimes had to look in your codex, look one place in the main rules to find out where in the main rules the actual thing you were looking for were. I also think reading the core rules shouldn't take a whole afternoon, I'd rather some of the complexity of the rules shoved into datasheets using universal language and into supplements like Chapter Approved where you can find a more complicated set of missions.

    An average reader can read the 9th edition core rules in an hour, that's about the amount of time it takes to write a couple of 500 pt lists and get terrain and models ready, by the time the newbie you set to read the rules is finished you'll be ready to play, 9th is convenient and fun to teach.

    Stratagems should be part of your army list so both you and your opponent have them on hand. 9th has massive flaws, but I think it has more potential than 5th did even if 5th had better execution of its design.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 15:27:25


    Post by: Tyel


     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    As for Rule of Three, it's a solution to an old problem that somehow still lingers in this game. So many units have their own datasheet or come in squadrons, that Rule of Three doesn't really matter. I believe the entire impetus for the Rule of Three were Tyranid armies bringing multiple flying Hive Tyrants in Supreme Command detachments. Well, the 5 HQ Supreme Command detachment doesn't exist, and Flying HTs are scarcely viable... so why do we need that rule anymore?


    And Tau Commanders, and Malefic Lords, and arguably Storm Ravens.

    The Rule of 3 is a sensible hedge on the fact GW can't get balance right.

    I mean you think DE are bad now - I'm constantly lamenting we never got to see the 14~ Ravager armies back in 8th, due to Rule of 3 coming out a month or so before the DE Codex.
    I don't own 14 ravagers, I never would own 14 ravagers - but the implosion of an edition would have been something to behold.

    Arguably the rule of 3 does what your FOC does - but being less severe given the expanded nature of the rosters these days. I guess you could double down, say you hate MSU, go big or go home, allow all vehicles to squadron up etc - but yeah. As it stands I think you'd be placing a major restriction on what people could take, with limited balance implications to speak of. Saying for example to Ork players "okay I see you've got 10 Fast Attack or Heavy Support units, but you can only ever bring 4, the end full stop" isn't the game be more balanced, its just making the game more lame.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 16:07:35


    Post by: VladimirHerzog


    IMO if there is the rule of 3, there shouldnt be a FOC at all.
    Just design the armies in a way that you're incentivised to bring a bit of everything


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 16:24:38


    Post by: Unit1126PLL


    To reinforce the scotsman's point, I played a Imperial Guard Steel Legion Mechanized Infantry company into 1k sons recently (using their 9th book) and it was basically:

    1top) I move up with chimeras to the central objectives, everything is out of los.
    1bottom) he moves up with 1 psyker and 1x mutalith vortex beast, deletes a chimera and contests the other objective

    2top) I delete his mutalith, can't target the psyker because "YOU CAN'T TARGET ME" stratagem employing a bodyguard unit out of LOS. I reclaim the center objectives.
    2bottom) He deletes a chimera, moving most of his stuff out of cover now. I lose the center objectives.

    3top) I delete his other mutalith vortex beast, and reclaim the central objectives.
    3bottom) he deep strikes 10x terminators, deletes a chimera, then charges my tank commander with a DP. I vengeance-for-cadia&defensive gunners&overwatch his DP to death. I lose the central objectives.

    4top) my mob of infantry that fell out of chimeras moves up and claims the central objective; I delete a rubric squad. I reclaim the central objectives.
    4bottom) his terminators and rubrics evaporate my mob of infantry. Psykers evaporate the tank commander. I lose the central objectives.

    5top) I move my last chimera onto the central objectives with sporadic infantry support from the ragged 1s and 2s of guardsmen left alive (including my company commander). 75% of my army is gone, and it's a performative effort to move onto the objectives and get swept off again.
    5bottom) he is unable to regain the objectives, but is able to sweep me off.

    We tied the game, but it really did boil down to "important thing got deleted each turn" and "wave attack the objectives" where a "wave" is *more separate units than he has ability to target* (even if each of those separate units, if together, were smaller than a single IG squad).

    Both of our armies were pretty savaged. I had 3 basilisks left that had been shelling the whole game, he had 10 terminators that I screened essentially back to his DZ and a bunch of psykers. I had some officers and some scattered guardsmen.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 16:35:44


    Post by: Daedalus81


     the_scotsman wrote:
     Daedalus81 wrote:


    I would say your experience is isolated to your army. It's too easy to play and that gets boring. GW very clearly needs to do something about DE. I don't know what that next step should be, but I'd love to hear your thoughts, because DE sticking to the top is getting tiresome. I haven't had the luxury of playing DE with TS and I'm unsure what GK is capable of in that regard either ( and not enough data yet ).


    No, it super isn't just isolated to my DE, it's all my armies but especially the weaker/underpowered ones.

    GSC: Everything I put down on the table must be hidden out of LOS during deployment or it can and will be instantly destroyed turn 1. Everything in reserves must deep strike turn 2 or it'll essentially have arrived too late to do anything to influence the course of the game, which is over for all intents and purposes by top of turn 3. 5CP/12 is essentially accounted for at the beginning of a game, as I have never not used both A Perfect Ambush and Lying In Wait.

    Grots: all the movement in my grot army is pre-determined - dreads advance towards the enemy, kanz and tanks move towards the enemy and shoot rokkits at elites/tanks, buzzgob always gives +1 to hit to kanz turn 1 and either to kanz or dread turn 2 if kanz are dead, Ghaz always calls waagh turn 2 into turn 3, the only thing that varies is what objectives the min grot squads are trying to sneak onto and which actions theyre performing.

    Harlequins: everything tries to hide out of LOS again in deployment, all transports try to move towards an enemy elite/character/vehicle and shoot melta pistols at them, haywire bikes jump over terrain and try to haywire something, turn 2 everything wants to be in melee combat and empty transports move to cover objectives.

    There's no 'narrative' to any given game because 3/4 of at least one player's army is just dead by top of 3. the average number of actions/decision points you get with any given unit is 1.25, maybe 1.5 if your army is really designed to have staying power.

    It doesn't matter how much I try to set up interesting funky scenarios, that's just always how it turns out. Buddy wants to bring chaos knights against my admech+knights and have a cool robot smackdown? the game goes like this:

    -chaos knight charges across the whole board, charges my knight, kills it instantly
    -all my opponent's shooting goes into a helverin, kills it instantly
    -all my shooting goes into the chaos knight that killed my knight, kills it
    -my max-size unit of punchy robots rolls into a chaos knight midboard, kills it instantly
    -all my opponent's shooting goes into the max size unit of punchy robots, kills all of them, then a knight charges into the other helverin, killing it instantly.
    -all my shooting goes into a wardog, kills it
    -all my opponent's shooting kills my onager - I have a techpriest and a unit of shooty robots left, we call the game, top of 3.

    it's not like this was better in 7th, either, when the knight swords were D-weapons so a wraithknight vs knight duel would just look like the WK always swinging first cus higher initiative and then having the damage to one-shot the knight 3 times over, but it's just always been so sad when you compare the way an epic duel between giant robots goes in 40k compared to a system like Titanicus, where something getting critted and destroyed instantly is this crazy "OH gak" once in a game moment, instead of just...the expected outcome of anything shooting or charging anything else.

    This level of lethality works great for a fast-moving card game or an RPG where you want combat to be smooth and easy to resolve but it's absolute misery in a hobby where you want rules to represent a unit you spent a combined total of 20 hours painstakingly painting up.


    Titanicus has way fewer models. Like...10? It damn well better not be as lethal.

    That knight game is a great example of learning your opponent and what not to do. Why stand in charge range? Why let robots be in easy charge range? Of course a 400 to 500 point knight is going to slap 150 points. Of course 600+ points of robots plus character support is going to slap a knight. I do feel like you're embellishing a bit as well where he easily removes 42 wounds of robots in a single turn after half his army ( two knights ) were dead.

    It sounds more like you brought a bunch of high power units and ignored the mission entirely and/or secondaries became all kill focused, because of the lists.

    You don't have to get on objectives immediately. You don't have to make sure everything that can shoot is shooting. You don't have to deepstrike by turn 2. Those are general statements - GSC are really rough right now so that could be true and more pressing opponents are going to change what you can and can't do. I'm not a fan of Rukks dropping bombs and I would still like to see a penalty to shooting out of LOS, but I manage just fine for now.

    Less lethal is really a matter of perspective.

    5 old marines standing still ( so, double tap ) kill 1.8 Boyz. 5 5th edition marines killed 1.7 with one shot and 3.4 when double tapping.
    An old TLC took a Killa Kan out of the game 40% of the time ( and if you're immobilized in a squadron...lol ). The current TLC takes one out 18% of the time.

    Dem nostalgia glasses. What people experienced was more melee since stuff like Boyz were so cheap and Rapid Fire was restricted, so it took a couple turns for units to get into each other and then they died pretty fast unless no one brought a power fist against marines and then you just stood there in a pile the rest of the game. Various points through history brought units able to close the distance fast and/or hit hard ( more in 5th forward though ).


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 16:37:20


    Post by: Da Boss


    I liked the FOC, I like the extra structure it gives. I thought it was a huge improvement when they brought it in in 3e and was disappointed when it went away.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 16:44:31


    Post by: kodos


    the FOC was not the problem, but what units were in the specific slots

    one army having all good units in support while others got 1 good in each of elite, support and troops

    and it was a random choice and changed on the fly


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 16:47:19


    Post by: Daedalus81


     Unit1126PLL wrote:
    To reinforce the scotsman's point, I played a Imperial Guard Steel Legion Mechanized Infantry company into 1k sons recently (using their 9th book) and it was basically:

    1top) I move up with chimeras to the central objectives, everything is out of los.
    1bottom) he moves up with 1 psyker and 1x mutalith vortex beast, deletes a chimera and contests the other objective

    2top) I delete his mutalith, can't target the psyker because "YOU CAN'T TARGET ME" stratagem employing a bodyguard unit out of LOS. I reclaim the center objectives.
    2bottom) He deletes a chimera, moving most of his stuff out of cover now. I lose the center objectives.

    3top) I delete his other mutalith vortex beast, and reclaim the central objectives.
    3bottom) he deep strikes 10x terminators, deletes a chimera, then charges my tank commander with a DP. I vengeance-for-cadia&defensive gunners&overwatch his DP to death. I lose the central objectives.

    4top) my mob of infantry that fell out of chimeras moves up and claims the central objective; I delete a rubric squad. I reclaim the central objectives.
    4bottom) his terminators and rubrics evaporate my mob of infantry. Psykers evaporate the tank commander. I lose the central objectives.

    5top) I move my last chimera onto the central objectives with sporadic infantry support from the ragged 1s and 2s of guardsmen left alive (including my company commander). 75% of my army is gone, and it's a performative effort to move onto the objectives and get swept off again.
    5bottom) he is unable to regain the objectives, but is able to sweep me off.

    We tied the game, but it really did boil down to "important thing got deleted each turn" and "wave attack the objectives" where a "wave" is *more separate units than he has ability to target* (even if each of those separate units, if together, were smaller than a single IG squad).

    Both of our armies were pretty savaged. I had 3 basilisks left that had been shelling the whole game, he had 10 terminators that I screened essentially back to his DZ and a bunch of psykers. I had some officers and some scattered guardsmen.


    I feel like you guys are painting a pretty disingenuous portrayal of how the game flows. You could have brought deepstriking units to threaten him. You could have pushed somewhere other than the center.

    Perhaps you could have crashed a chimera into that psyker sticking his head out. You can't cast if you fallback and if he was going to take it out now he has to do so where it could explode in his face and if he fails to do so then you've potentially move blocked him. Doing this would probably sacrifice some direct control of the objectives, but offers and opportunity to slow him down. Maybe he could have focused on clearing your backfield in one particular area to allow his deepstrikers to penetrate further in.

    His DP shouldn't have gone straight in. He should have found a path that maybe took an extra turn and allowed from a charge from behind cover.

    There are decisions made - and not made - that influence the outcome of this game that you guys willfully omit to make your point.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 16:54:03


    Post by: ccs


    chaos0xomega wrote:
    Am I the only one who wishes GW would just bring back the old force org rules (1-2 HQ, 0-3 Elites, 2-6 Troops, 0-3 Fast Attack, 0-3 Heavy Support) and do away with the detachment system? Points are never going to be effective at balancing the game if you basically have no constraints for them to shape list-building to. The introduction of the "rule of 3" (which now goes to rule of 4 at certain points levels I guess) was necessitated by the lack of limitation on ones ability to spam (typically non-troop) units and the inability of repeat points adjustments to curtail the balance issues resulting from it. Easier to just cut out the middleman and do away with the entire listbuilding concept as it currently exists, you wouldn't need the rule of 3 if armies were capped at only being able to take 3 of any one slot type. I, for one, also miss the mandatory troop tax - in general I would like to see lists with more troops in them, not less.


    The detachment system is the best part of 8th/9th as far as I'm concerned.
    •Because of it I can actually run my all Dreadnought force nowadays, not just collect it as a project.
    •Because of it I can run my completely awful, very thematic tyranid force that tries to emulate the movie Alien.
    •I can finally make a dark Eldar free DE army....
    •I can field more of my favorite nrcron units - hey. It's not my fault GW loaded up the elites & heavy slots with alot of cool models. I just want to play with as many of them as possible. Sadly though the
    Rule of 3 gak robs me from fielding 6 Doomstalkers (and thus deprives my local shop of more of my $$).
    •I can run assorted thematic soup lists - presuming I'm willing to pay the rules taxes.... (spoiler: I am willing)
    + I can still run the traditional force org limits if I want....
    So no, I absolutely do not want a return to the previous system.

    Besudes. As GWs interests have always been to sell me more models. they were always quite willing to provide options throughout 3-7th that swapped what slot units were in &/or made exceltions.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 16:55:19


    Post by: Racerguy180


    Armchair quaterbacking now Daed????
    Or Capt. Hindsight?


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 17:08:48


    Post by: the_scotsman


     Daedalus81 wrote:


    Titanicus has way fewer models. Like...10? It damn well better not be as lethal.

    Yeah...almost like it's a better fething miniatures game for miniatures that take a long ass time to paint and cost a gak ton of money...

    That knight game is a great example of learning your opponent and what not to do. Why stand in charge range? because fething sue me for not memorizing the entire codex of a faction I've never played before, and I didnt realize this relic combo'd with this WLT combo'd with that subfaction combo'd with that stratagem changed the threat range of a knight from 19" range to 26" range Why let robots be in easy charge range? Because theyd just killed a knight in melee Of course a 400 to 500 point knight is going to slap 150 points. That's not the problem, it's the incredible incredible ease with which you can remove 450pts of unit with...about 450pts of unit in 9th edition Of course 600+ points of robots plus character support is going to slap a knight. Yeah OBVIOUSLY, DUH you're going to be able to remove 75% of your value in a single turn with a unit, otherwise what would you have? Some kind of stupid "multi-turn wargame"???? I do feel like you're embellishing a bit as well where he easily removes 42 wounds of robots in a single turn after half his army ( two knights ) were dead.

    It sounds more like you brought a bunch of high power units and ignored the mission entirely and/or secondaries became all kill focused, because of the lists. Actually, again,I complain because i feel like I put a gak-ton of effort into trying to make this game enjoyable and it just stubbornly refuses to be, we had custom objectives going in this game where each side got 2 T7 3+ 40W fortifications in their deployment zone, and whichever side had caused the most damage to them at the end of the game would win. It was so laughably easy for even a fairly small unit from one of our armies to chunk 10+ wounds off one of the fortifications that it was hardly an afterthought to destroying eachothers' army. One single armiger had a turn of shooting and melee'ing one of the objectives and it took 22 damage.

    You don't have to get on objectives immediately. You don't have to make sure everything that can shoot is shooting. You don't have to deepstrike by turn 2. Those are general statements - GSC are really rough right now so that could be true and more pressing opponents are going to change what you can and can't do. I'm not a fan of Rukks dropping bombs and I would still like to see a penalty to shooting out of LOS, but I manage just fine for now.

    Less lethal is really a matter of perspective.

    5 old marines standing still ( so, double tap ) kill 1.8 Boyz. 5 5th edition marines killed 1.7 with one shot and 3.4 when double tapping.
    An old TLC took a Killa Kan out of the game 40% of the time ( and if you're immobilized in a squadron...lol ). The current TLC takes one out 18% of the time. You're arguing past me at this point, and pretending that I made a claim that an older edition of the game was better that I didnt actually mention in any way. Fifth edition - at least for certain types of units - was also ridiculously, stupidly lethal. My very first turn of my very first game of 40k was the unit of long fangs I'd spent 10+ hours painting getting flattened by the very first shot fired by one of my friend's four leman russ tanks. I also notice that you're both purposefully choosing a very underpowered unit into a fairly defensive target, ignoring all the various mostly offensive bonuses that units are always getting in actual games, and that makes for a very handy comparison when you're looking at an edition of the game that had NO subfactions NO relics NO stratagems NO auras NO warlord traits NO doctrines....

    Dem nostalgia glasses. What people experienced was more melee since stuff like Boyz were so cheap and Rapid Fire was restricted, so it took a couple turns for units to get into each other Yeah it helps when your baseline fething trooper for the most common faction in the game isnt rocking a 30" full-power threat range on a 44" wide board, doesn't it? and then they died pretty fast unless no one brought a power fist against marines and then you just stood there in a pile the rest of the game. Various points through history brought units able to close the distance fast and/or hit hard ( more in 5th forward though ).


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 17:13:09


    Post by: Daedalus81


    Racerguy180 wrote:
    Armchair quaterbacking now Daed????
    Or Capt. Hindsight?


    If you can't reflect on a game and look for mistakes or opportunities then - and I don't intend for this to be insulting - I would consider that poor play. Barring that they then did have some similar thoughts and omit them to win a debate. I'm not particularly fond of either scenario.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 17:16:10


    Post by: techsoldaten


     the_scotsman wrote:

    It doesn't matter how much I try to set up interesting funky scenarios, that's just always how it turns out. Buddy wants to bring chaos knights against my admech+knights and have a cool robot smackdown? the game goes like this:

    -chaos knight charges across the whole board, charges my knight, kills it instantly
    -all my opponent's shooting goes into a helverin, kills it instantly
    -all my shooting goes into the chaos knight that killed my knight, kills it
    -my max-size unit of punchy robots rolls into a chaos knight midboard, kills it instantly
    -all my opponent's shooting goes into the max size unit of punchy robots, kills all of them, then a knight charges into the other helverin, killing it instantly.
    -all my shooting goes into a wardog, kills it
    -all my opponent's shooting kills my onager - I have a techpriest and a unit of shooty robots left, we call the game, top of 3.


    Would not disagree with the idea games can go this way. Would disagree with the idea most games go this way, or that it's not worth the effort to set up a game.

    These are skew lists, I play a lot of them. Throughout most of 8th, I played a Chaos Gunline. 22+ lascannons firing from my table edge, with beatsticks lurking to smash anything that got close. Most games had me destroying the best units in my opponent's army turn 1 and overwhelming his ability to respond by turn 3.

    It's not that 22+ lascannons are overwhelming in themselves, the reason that list succeeded was that no one prepares for 22+ lascannons. Eventually, I moved onto a Daemon Primarch list, which also did well because no one prepared for Daemon Primarchs. I'm catching opponents off guard and introducing minor variations when they find hard counters.

    This is not representative of 40k generally, most people do not play these kinds of lists. Eventually, Orks / Dark Eldar / Imperial Knights flooded my meta and my gunline stopped working. There's limits to how long something can remain effective.

    I'd be interested in your breakdown of a game vs another army. Like, you would not have the tools to destroy more than a couple Ork units a turn, your opponent would not be able to destroy as many Knights by turn 3.





    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 17:21:24


    Post by: the_scotsman


     Daedalus81 wrote:


    There are decisions made - and not made - that influence the outcome of this game that you guys willfully omit to make your point.


    We're making the point because this is obviously a problem noticed by a huge number of people both familiar and not familiar with the rules, and it's frustrating that your only response is to deflect with whinging about how the example is disingenuous because this unit performed 15% above its expected effectiveness in a game with random dice, or you could have reduced the lethality of the game by sitting behind LOS blocking terrain until turn 3, then the game would have lasted until round 5, or whatever.

    My group recently did a big Crusade campaign, and we had a ton of people making up hugely detailed battle reports, and it takes no time at all to find a million examples of this problem.

    Battle Report 1 - Tau vs Ultramarines. Bottom of turn 2 the Tau take out a Redemptor, 2 Intercessor squads, and an Assault intercessor squad leaving a wounded captain alive to die to Overwatch top of turn 3

    Battle report 2 - Tau vs Daemons, top of turn 2 greater daemons take out a Riptide, a crisis suit team, a breacher squad, and a commander leaving 5 fire warriors and a piranha standing on the tau side

    Battle report 3 - Orks vs GSC/nids, bottom of turn 2 70% of the GSC player's army is obliterated leaving nothing but an allied big bug alive

    the fact that if you set up two 40k armies 24" away from one another with no terrain, the army that went first would extremely trivially remove over 2/3 of the opposing army without the opponent being able to take a single action is a massive problem.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 17:21:26


    Post by: Daedalus81


     the_scotsman wrote:
     Daedalus81 wrote:


    Titanicus has way fewer models. Like...10? It damn well better not be as lethal.

    Yeah...almost like it's a better fething miniatures game for miniatures that take a long ass time to paint and cost a gak ton of money...

    That knight game is a great example of learning your opponent and what not to do. Why stand in charge range? because fething sue me for not memorizing the entire codex of a faction I've never played before, and I didnt realize this relic combo'd with this WLT combo'd with that subfaction combo'd with that stratagem changed the threat range of a knight from 19" range to 26" range Why let robots be in easy charge range? Because theyd just killed a knight in melee Of course a 400 to 500 point knight is going to slap 150 points. That's not the problem, it's the incredible incredible ease with which you can remove 450pts of unit with...about 450pts of unit in 9th edition Of course 600+ points of robots plus character support is going to slap a knight. Yeah OBVIOUSLY, DUH you're going to be able to remove 75% of your value in a single turn with a unit, otherwise what would you have? Some kind of stupid "multi-turn wargame"???? I do feel like you're embellishing a bit as well where he easily removes 42 wounds of robots in a single turn after half his army ( two knights ) were dead.

    It sounds more like you brought a bunch of high power units and ignored the mission entirely and/or secondaries became all kill focused, because of the lists. Actually, again,I complain because i feel like I put a gak-ton of effort into trying to make this game enjoyable and it just stubbornly refuses to be, we had custom objectives going in this game where each side got 2 T7 3+ 40W fortifications in their deployment zone, and whichever side had caused the most damage to them at the end of the game would win. It was so laughably easy for even a fairly small unit from one of our armies to chunk 10+ wounds off one of the fortifications that it was hardly an afterthought to destroying eachothers' army. One single armiger had a turn of shooting and melee'ing one of the objectives and it took 22 damage.

    You don't have to get on objectives immediately. You don't have to make sure everything that can shoot is shooting. You don't have to deepstrike by turn 2. Those are general statements - GSC are really rough right now so that could be true and more pressing opponents are going to change what you can and can't do. I'm not a fan of Rukks dropping bombs and I would still like to see a penalty to shooting out of LOS, but I manage just fine for now.

    Less lethal is really a matter of perspective.

    5 old marines standing still ( so, double tap ) kill 1.8 Boyz. 5 5th edition marines killed 1.7 with one shot and 3.4 when double tapping.
    An old TLC took a Killa Kan out of the game 40% of the time ( and if you're immobilized in a squadron...lol ). The current TLC takes one out 18% of the time. You're arguing past me at this point, and pretending that I made a claim that an older edition of the game was better that I didnt actually mention in any way. Fifth edition - at least for certain types of units - was also ridiculously, stupidly lethal. My very first turn of my very first game of 40k was the unit of long fangs I'd spent 10+ hours painting getting flattened by the very first shot fired by one of my friend's four leman russ tanks. I also notice that you're both purposefully choosing a very underpowered unit into a fairly defensive target, ignoring all the various mostly offensive bonuses that units are always getting in actual games, and that makes for a very handy comparison when you're looking at an edition of the game that had NO subfactions NO relics NO stratagems NO auras NO warlord traits NO doctrines....

    Dem nostalgia glasses. What people experienced was more melee since stuff like Boyz were so cheap and Rapid Fire was restricted, so it took a couple turns for units to get into each other Yeah it helps when your baseline fething trooper for the most common faction in the game isnt rocking a 30" full-power threat range on a 44" wide board, doesn't it? and then they died pretty fast unless no one brought a power fist against marines and then you just stood there in a pile the rest of the game. Various points through history brought units able to close the distance fast and/or hit hard ( more in 5th forward though ).


    I mean that sounds like a fine sort of objective for normal armies, but when you're packing two armies with heavy shooting and super strong melee ( I imagine the fort was auto-hit? ) then it seems like the outcome would be a given with those variables. Why not go back to the drawing board and make them T9 5++ vs shooting and make it so an infantry unit can immediately score the whole fort if it makes a successful charge and they aren't counter charged out by the next command phase?

    Then you've got a mission that promotes defense as well as dragging out smaller units to try and sneak a victory in while keeping shooting from being a panacea to victory so you need to get close.

    I don't think how fast models are removed is a good metric to enjoyment. I love my models, but pulling them off the table is part of the game.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     the_scotsman wrote:

    the fact that if you set up two 40k armies 24" away from one another with no terrain, the army that went first would extremely trivially remove over 2/3 of the opposing army without the opponent being able to take a single action is a massive problem.


    Yes, I will not refute this. Terrain is massively important and I recognize people could be having different experiences if they try to fashion a table with more narrative. I think you can still make interesting looking tables, but it needs more care.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 17:26:14


    Post by: the_scotsman


     techsoldaten wrote:
     the_scotsman wrote:

    It doesn't matter how much I try to set up interesting funky scenarios, that's just always how it turns out. Buddy wants to bring chaos knights against my admech+knights and have a cool robot smackdown? the game goes like this:

    -chaos knight charges across the whole board, charges my knight, kills it instantly
    -all my opponent's shooting goes into a helverin, kills it instantly
    -all my shooting goes into the chaos knight that killed my knight, kills it
    -my max-size unit of punchy robots rolls into a chaos knight midboard, kills it instantly
    -all my opponent's shooting goes into the max size unit of punchy robots, kills all of them, then a knight charges into the other helverin, killing it instantly.
    -all my shooting goes into a wardog, kills it
    -all my opponent's shooting kills my onager - I have a techpriest and a unit of shooty robots left, we call the game, top of 3.


    Would not disagree with the idea games can go this way. Would disagree with the idea most games go this way, or that it's not worth the effort to set up a game.

    These are skew lists, I play a lot of them. Throughout most of 8th, I played a Chaos Gunline. 22+ lascannons firing from my table edge, with beatsticks lurking to smash anything that got close. Most games had me destroying the best units in my opponent's army turn 1 and overwhelming his ability to respond by turn 3.

    It's not that 22+ lascannons are overwhelming in themselves, the reason that list succeeded was that no one prepares for 22+ lascannons. Eventually, I moved onto a Daemon Primarch list, which also did well because no one prepared for Daemon Primarchs. I'm catching opponents off guard and introducing minor variations when they find hard counters.

    This is not representative of 40k generally, most people do not play these kinds of lists. Eventually, Orks / Dark Eldar / Imperial Knights flooded my meta and my gunline stopped working. There's limits to how long something can remain effective.

    I'd be interested in your breakdown of a game vs another army. Like, you would not have the tools to destroy more than a couple Ork units a turn, your opponent would not be able to destroy as many Knights by turn 3.





    Yeah, you're definitely right, why my unit of robots could barely handle 33 ork boyz in a single round of shooting+combat, theyre really inefficient against light infantry only a 50% points return in a single round. Why if I had that kind of inefficient performance, the game might even last til the bottom of turn 3!


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 17:33:53


    Post by: techsoldaten


     the_scotsman wrote:
    Yeah, you're definitely right, why my unit of robots could barely handle 33 ork boyz in a single round of shooting+combat, theyre really inefficient against light infantry only a 50% points return in a single round. Why if I had that kind of inefficient performance, the game might even last til the bottom of turn 3!


    While I appreciate the sarcasm - realistically, you would be facing more than a mob of boys. It's unlikely you'd be able to reach a stalemate by turn 3.

    A series of games against a Chaos Knight list says little about 40k in general.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 17:34:29


    Post by: Gregor Samsa


    This thread just makes me sad at how hard it is to get epic40k minis. It is the solution to the problem at hand.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 17:37:01


    Post by: the_scotsman


     Daedalus81 wrote:


    I don't think how fast models are removed is a good metric to enjoyment. I love my models, but pulling them off the table is part of the game.


    if the purpose of a wargame is representing using a tabletop system the way a particular type of fictional or historical battle should feel, then 40k is a more useful system for modeling waves of soldiers getting mowed down by machine guns in WW1 than any kind of fight between "space super soldiers."

    No unit in 40k feels like an 'elite super soldier' - they die like absolute chumps faster than the cheapest shittiest conscript wave in any ww2 system.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     Gregor Samsa wrote:
    This thread just makes me sad at how hard it is to get epic40k minis. It is the solution to the problem at hand.


    unlimited quantities of epic 40k minis cost exactly as much as a 3d printer plus 1kg of resin.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 17:40:48


    Post by: aphyon


    Wayniac wrote:IMHO the problem is and always has been that 40k is trying to be a company level game with huge army level assets. It's trying to appeal to everyone and not being able to specialize.

    They really should have kept 40k as company level and then have Epic (or Apocalypse but Epic had smaller scale so it fit better) for actual large battles where you had huge superheavies and flyers and stuff. It would have been worlds better.


    The problem with that is GW as a company. i own many epic armies and i love them, but individual "kits" in epic scale have no profit margin for GW the way they do for 28mm scale. in the same manner of going from a skirmish system to an army system with the game from 2nd-3rd. it requires players to buy a lot more GW models which is better for sales.

    Notice they no longer support epic, BFG and other low profit margin games that do not tie into the main games where minis can be re-used.

    chaos0xomega wrote:


    The detachment system is the best part of 8th/9th as far as I'm concerned.
    •Because of it I can actually run my all Dreadnought force nowadays, not just collect it as a project.
    •Because of it I can run my completely awful, very thematic tyranid force that tries to emulate the movie Alien.
    •I can finally make a dark Eldar free DE army....
    •I can field more of my favorite nrcron units - hey. It's not my fault GW loaded up the elites & heavy slots with alot of cool models. I just want to play with as many of them as possible. Sadly though the
    Rule of 3 gak robs me from fielding 6 Doomstalkers (and thus deprives my local shop of more of my $$).
    •I can run assorted thematic soup lists - presuming I'm willing to pay the rules taxes.... (spoiler: I am willing)
    + I can still run the traditional force org limits if I want....
    So no, I absolutely do not want a return to the previous system.

    Besudes. As GWs interests have always been to sell me more models. they were always quite willing to provide options throughout 3-7th that swapped what slot units were in &/or made exceltions.









    ......




    Yes they want to sell more models, most of us fell into that trap by just building different armies. i built what 7 from 3rd-5th before i learned my lesson?

    As to your points, a couple i have experience with in the old FOC
    1. master of the forge + dread talons means 95% of your army could be dreads in a normal force org chart. so that's not a new option.
    2. my tyranid army was based on the warrior model that i love above all else in the nid list. and i could fill nearly the entire army with them as HQs, fast attack and elites.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 18:11:46


    Post by: Racerguy180


    aphyon wrote:
    Notice they no longer support epic, BFG and other low profit margin games that do not tie into the main games where minis can be re-used.



    You can't use Titanicus and Aeronautica in mainline 40k so....whaddya mean?


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 18:14:18


    Post by: AnomanderRake


    Racerguy180 wrote:
    aphyon wrote:
    Notice they no longer support epic, BFG and other low profit margin games that do not tie into the main games where minis can be re-used.



    You can't use Titanicus and Aeronautica in mainline 40k so....whaddya mean?


    ...I wouldn't describe Titanicus or Aeronautica as "currently supported."


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 18:15:31


    Post by: Daedalus81


     Gregor Samsa wrote:
    This thread just makes me sad at how hard it is to get epic40k minis. It is the solution to the problem at hand.


    They're pretty easy to find, actually:

    https://www.onslaughtmini.com/

    There's more out there, too.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    aphyon wrote:

    The problem with that is GW as a company. i own many epic armies and i love them, but individual "kits" in epic scale have no profit margin for GW the way they do for 28mm scale. in the same manner of going from a skirmish system to an army system with the game from 2nd-3rd. it requires players to buy a lot more GW models which is better for sales.

    Notice they no longer support epic, BFG and other low profit margin games that do not tie into the main games where minis can be re-used.


    What is Adeptus Titanicus, Aeronautica, Bloodbowl, and Necromunda if not games where minis can't be reused?


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 18:45:32


    Post by: ERJAK


     the_scotsman wrote:
     Daedalus81 wrote:


    There are decisions made - and not made - that influence the outcome of this game that you guys willfully omit to make your point.




    the fact that if you set up two 40k armies 24" away from one another with no terrain, the army that went first would extremely trivially remove over 2/3 of the opposing army without the opponent being able to take a single action is a massive problem.


    Maybe quit using black powder musket tactics in a setting with machine guns?




    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     Unit1126PLL wrote:
    To reinforce the scotsman's point, I played a Imperial Guard Steel Legion Mechanized Infantry company into 1k sons recently (using their 9th book) and it was basically:

    1top) I move up with chimeras to the central objectives, everything is out of los.
    1bottom) he moves up with 1 psyker and 1x mutalith vortex beast, deletes a chimera and contests the other objective

    2top) I delete his mutalith, can't target the psyker because "YOU CAN'T TARGET ME" stratagem employing a bodyguard unit out of LOS. I reclaim the center objectives.
    2bottom) He deletes a chimera, moving most of his stuff out of cover now. I lose the center objectives.

    3top) I delete his other mutalith vortex beast, and reclaim the central objectives.
    3bottom) he deep strikes 10x terminators, deletes a chimera, then charges my tank commander with a DP. I vengeance-for-cadia&defensive gunners&overwatch his DP to death. I lose the central objectives.

    4top) my mob of infantry that fell out of chimeras moves up and claims the central objective; I delete a rubric squad. I reclaim the central objectives.
    4bottom) his terminators and rubrics evaporate my mob of infantry. Psykers evaporate the tank commander. I lose the central objectives.

    5top) I move my last chimera onto the central objectives with sporadic infantry support from the ragged 1s and 2s of guardsmen left alive (including my company commander). 75% of my army is gone, and it's a performative effort to move onto the objectives and get swept off again.
    5bottom) he is unable to regain the objectives, but is able to sweep me off.

    We tied the game, but it really did boil down to "important thing got deleted each turn" and "wave attack the objectives" where a "wave" is *more separate units than he has ability to target* (even if each of those separate units, if together, were smaller than a single IG squad).

    Both of our armies were pretty savaged. I had 3 basilisks left that had been shelling the whole game, he had 10 terminators that I screened essentially back to his DZ and a bunch of psykers. I had some officers and some scattered guardsmen.


    So you had a back and forth game that came down to the wire and decimated both forces? I'm missing the bad here.

    Is the goal to have them turn away from violence and have a nice tea party and talk about their feelings? Because while that does sound lovely, it's not really what 40k is about.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 19:00:19


    Post by: VladimirHerzog


     AnomanderRake wrote:
    Racerguy180 wrote:
    aphyon wrote:
    Notice they no longer support epic, BFG and other low profit margin games that do not tie into the main games where minis can be re-used.



    You can't use Titanicus and Aeronautica in mainline 40k so....whaddya mean?


    ...I wouldn't describe Titanicus or Aeronautica as "currently supported."


    Oh, right. I guess the 17 items they sell for Aeronautica or the 48 for Titanicus is the same exact amount of support as the 0 items they sell for Epic or BFG


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 19:19:39


    Post by: Stormonu


     kodos wrote:
    Just because GW tries to sell it as "Tournament" Edition does not man it is one


    “Who you gonna believe? Your eyes or me?”


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 19:22:45


    Post by: catbarf


     Daedalus81 wrote:
    Yes, I will not refute this. Terrain is massively important and I recognize people could be having different experiences if they try to fashion a table with more narrative. I think you can still make interesting looking tables, but it needs more care.


    I've built a lot of terrain because I like terrain-heavy boards and find that restriction of LOS makes for more interesting games. Imagine my reaction when I found that monsters and vehicles outright can't enter the jungles I've made.

    So every board is a balancing act between having lanes big enough for bigger models to move through, while still having enough LOS-blocking terrain for maneuver to matter. That means having at least 4" gaps, in a game where a basic infantryman can only move 6" in his turn- in practice, it means a lot of units caught out of cover, while vehicles and monsters are constrained to very specific paths.

    Frankly, it sucks, and I much prefer the terrain rules in older editions- where terrain was traversible, and not only LOS-blocking but actually made a major difference to survivability. Terrain in 9th is too binary; either you're hidden, or you're visible and can be engaged at either full or near-full effectiveness.

    I'll also echo the comments made about most armies playing on autopilot (my game plan is pretty well set before the game begins), and especially this:

     the_scotsman wrote:
    This level of lethality works great for a fast-moving card game or an RPG where you want combat to be smooth and easy to resolve but it's absolute misery in a hobby where you want rules to represent a unit you spent a combined total of 20 hours painstakingly painting up.


    It is just damned demoralizing to spend the time to paint up a squad of (expensive, $-wise) troops only to have them blown off the table turn 1 before they get to do anything.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 19:28:28


    Post by: Rihgu


     catbarf wrote:

    It is just damned demoralizing to spend the time to paint up a squad of (expensive, $-wise) troops only to have them blown off the table turn 1 before they get to do anything.


    Well, here's a solution: buy a stronger model/unit, spend minimal time/effort on it, and that unit will take the shooting instead! Simple maths.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 19:31:10


    Post by: Unit1126PLL


    ERJAK wrote:
    So you had a back and forth game that came down to the wire and decimated both forces? I'm missing the bad here.


    It really wasn't that bad of a game from 40k standards, but there weren't any actual decisions. Any "wire-coming-down-to-ness" wasn't because of decision making. And to debunk Daedalus's armchair generalship:

    1) I did crash I chimera into psykers sticking their heads out. A lot of the dead chimeras were in the psychic phase from psykers wounding them to death. He did 3 MW with Doombolt, paid the warpcraft points thingy for an additional D3, and that's half a Chimera gone to a single non-smite power on a 3-cast psyker surrounded by other 1-3 cast psykers - AFTER the chimera has already lost some wounds to the Str 7 staff. Locking him in combat with chimeras just got the chimeras deleted pretty much instantly because that's such a clear and obvious solution to that problem; the decision basically not in the hands of the player ("hmm, do I fall back and waste my everything, or do I delete the Chimera, and then shoot and charge? Hard choice..."). I was praying for Chimera explosions, but didn't get any, because that's not a decision in the hands of the player. It did slow him down, but his guns and powers didn't really need to move to be in range, so he just blapped me off the objectives, because that's an obvious decision that is basically not in the hands of the player.

    2) There was no path for his DP to do it the way I had surrounded my tank commander. I forced him to come to my front. Because that's a decision that's so obvious it's barely in the hands of the player, ESPECIALLY with so much terrain that's impassable to vehicles. I did this essentially by accident since my tanks were all funneled down one lane of advance on that particular flank. I didn't make a "decision" to protect my tank commander. Conversely, his charge choice was obvious: charge something else and probably delete one more irrelevant chimera (Before being deleted in turn by said tank commander), or charge the tank commander and try to cripple an important piece of my army (whilst being deleted by a combo-of-stratagems so obvious that the decision isn't in the hands of the player - you either have the CP and remember the strats, or you don't).

    The theme here are "decisions the players made that affected the outcome" and those decisions were:
    1) I will play for the objectives
    2) I will make the obvious, clear, optimal choice in every occasion, because there are no hard decisions in this game.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 19:57:59


    Post by: Tyel


    The issue with saying "terrain helps" is it just changes the question.

    Yes, obviously you should LOS block with everything. But it just means lists evolve to deal with that reality. You want units with good movement abilities who can navigate the table and deliver their ludicrous point returns into someone before your opponent does the same to you. This is a skill - but its not overly skilful. It just an evolution players go through.

    Damage in 40k is too high. I think GW want one or both players to have relatively little left by turn 5. That seems reasonable. But many people are being near wiped by the close of turn 3 unless they spend the first turn or 2 hiding behind a brick of polystyrene. Which isn't really a good thing.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 20:51:05


    Post by: jeff white


    Some themes emerging…
    Force org should return… or not.
    Special rules should return to usr and included in main book if possible e.g. jet bikes.
    Generally, main book should have the rules, codices should describe units and how these interact with rules… mostly if not completely.
    Terrain and morale should be more realistic (for lack of a better word… maybe meaningful would be good?)
    Needing to study core rules plus expansions plus every codex to understand what is possible at any given game night is… a lot to ask, especially when many or most important rules are in codices and expansions.
    Accessibility is good… gaminess is not. (Realism helps with accessibility imho because it lets people take advantage of everyday real life intuitions in making sense of what is happening on the tabletop.)
    Movement should matter (more).
    Table is too small. Weapon ranges and ranges generally are too big relative to table size.
    Model placement should matter (more).

    I may have missed something important and likely added something not…


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 21:25:42


    Post by: TangoTwoBravo


    For me, accessibility refers to the ability of a gamer new to the system to get going with a game. Its the "floor" of the gaming experience.

    The 8th Edition designer wrote in WD back in 2019 that accessibility was the goal. Instead of a large book of rules the game was stripped down to core rules onto which you layered rules as you wanted. He referenced the Core Rules being the same for everyone, but after that you could tailor your game. Open play was meant to be a game unencumbered by additional rules - get your datasheets which have the applicable rules for your models in the game and get playing with a simple mission.

    I think this carries forward into 9th Edition, although the Core Rules are written with more "tightness" and therefore more wordy. The datasheets provided with the models are certainly less accessible then the 8th Ed ones. It is still a very accessible gaming experience. If you have a Codex you do not need to play with all those faction rules and the datasheets alone give you what you need. Now, if a brand new player wants to play Ad Mech with all the bells and whistles they can do so, but they don't have to when they are getting started.

    Don't want lots of rules in your game? Try open play. You don't even need Terrain. If I am setting up somebody's first game of 9th Ed I go that route as my start state, adding layers based on their previous experience.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 21:27:38


    Post by: AnomanderRake


    Rihgu wrote:
     catbarf wrote:

    It is just damned demoralizing to spend the time to paint up a squad of (expensive, $-wise) troops only to have them blown off the table turn 1 before they get to do anything.


    Well, here's a solution: buy a stronger model/unit, spend minimal time/effort on it, and that unit will take the shooting instead! Simple maths.


    That's always the solution, isn't it? "Not having fun? Buy different models!"


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     VladimirHerzog wrote:
     AnomanderRake wrote:
    Racerguy180 wrote:
    aphyon wrote:
    Notice they no longer support epic, BFG and other low profit margin games that do not tie into the main games where minis can be re-used.



    You can't use Titanicus and Aeronautica in mainline 40k so....whaddya mean?


    ...I wouldn't describe Titanicus or Aeronautica as "currently supported."


    Oh, right. I guess the 17 items they sell for Aeronautica or the 48 for Titanicus is the same exact amount of support as the 0 items they sell for Epic or BFG


    They kept selling BFG models for, what, six or seven years after the last minis release/rules update?


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 22:28:52


    Post by: Daedalus81


     AnomanderRake wrote:
    They kept selling BFG models for, what, six or seven years after the last minis release/rules update?


    They just recently announced a new kight for Titanicus. That doesn't mean it isn't dead, but I'm not going to judge production until covid is under control. Nevertheless there is a significant amount of releases for detached games and if they die it was because they didn't sell well.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    Rihgu wrote:
     catbarf wrote:

    It is just damned demoralizing to spend the time to paint up a squad of (expensive, $-wise) troops only to have them blown off the table turn 1 before they get to do anything.


    Well, here's a solution: buy a stronger model/unit, spend minimal time/effort on it, and that unit will take the shooting instead! Simple maths.


    This is a weird/bad suggestion. Anyway, for me, I admire painted models before, after, and in between rounds. I don't have any sense of loss when they don't stay on the table so I have a hard time relating to this particular concern.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 22:43:20


    Post by: Gregor Samsa


    There is no point side-seat driving someone's off-hand recollection of a game of 9th edition they've played.

    Go watch tabletop tactics "league report" game where Lawrence's Drukhari tables Stig's Ad-Mech.

    That game was so controversial that they almost pulled it offline as people complained about it so much. Which to me is ridiculous, its not their fault that the Drukhari and Ad-Mech rules are terrible game design.

    That video is a clearly documented example of how "meta" 9th edition functions. It is showcasing two "netlist" "tournament ready" armies and records how they play out against one another.

    And what it exemplifies is a bad wargame.

    If we want to have a discussion about how games go, use examples that we can all view and comment on.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 23:14:57


    Post by: Daedalus81


     catbarf wrote:
    Frankly, it sucks, and I much prefer the terrain rules in older editions- where terrain was traversible, and not only LOS-blocking but actually made a major difference to survivability. Terrain in 9th is too binary; either you're hidden, or you're visible and can be engaged at either full or near-full effectiveness.


    So you're talking about only killing what you can see. I don't think I'd mind if that rule came back, but with current terrain rules it might perhaps wind up being stronger than intended.

    You can otherwise traverse just about anything as long as you aren't a "large" model, but unlike old editions a tank behind a forest can pick up a handy -1 to be hit regardless how much is visible, really. And in older editions units like jump packs wound take a dangerous terrain test ( twice! )when attempting to land in ruins.

    But let's map it out the old and new.

    Fully behind some crates
    Then - no benefit other than being invisible
    Now - invisible and you get cover from weapons that can still shoot you

    Barricade
    Then - you might get soft cover, which was totally useless to heavy armor, but you could swing first if they charged...unless they had assault grenades
    Now - you get cover, helps limit models that can fight in melee, grants an O/W or melee buff

    In swiss cheese cover
    Then - probably hard cover, which was either a 4++ or 5++; pretty great for just about everything, but you can be seen across the table
    Now - cover or obscuring depending on your placement

    The thing about old cover saves is it greatly benefits some dynamics ( super cheap models ) and not others ( power armor against small arms ). And that can create a big problem when the missions are less focused on killing and more on holding with obsec.

    There's pros and cons to each, but I much prefer the more flexible and well defined interactions with the terrain of 9th.





    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/14 23:21:25


    Post by: Gnarlly


     jeff white wrote:
    Some themes emerging…
    Force org should return… or not.
    Special rules should return to usr and included in main book if possible e.g. jet bikes.
    Generally, main book should have the rules, codices should describe units and how these interact with rules… mostly if not completely.
    Terrain and morale should be more realistic (for lack of a better word… maybe meaningful would be good?)
    Needing to study core rules plus expansions plus every codex to understand what is possible at any given game night is… a lot to ask, especially when many or most important rules are in codices and expansions.
    Accessibility is good… gaminess is not. (Realism helps with accessibility imho because it lets people take advantage of everyday real life intuitions in making sense of what is happening on the tabletop.)
    Movement should matter (more).
    Table is too small. Weapon ranges and ranges generally are too big relative to table size.
    Model placement should matter (more).

    I may have missed something important and likely added something not…


    Seems to me that going back to 4th/5th edition or a fan-made ruleset based on those editions would meet most of those goals/themes . . .


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/15 00:15:59


    Post by: Daedalus81


     Gregor Samsa wrote:
    There is no point side-seat driving someone's off-hand recollection of a game of 9th edition they've played.

    Go watch tabletop tactics "league report" game where Lawrence's Drukhari tables Stig's Ad-Mech.

    That game was so controversial that they almost pulled it offline as people complained about it so much. Which to me is ridiculous, its not their fault that the Drukhari and Ad-Mech rules are terrible game design.

    That video is a clearly documented example of how "meta" 9th edition functions. It is showcasing two "netlist" "tournament ready" armies and records how they play out against one another.

    And what it exemplifies is a bad wargame.

    If we want to have a discussion about how games go, use examples that we can all view and comment on.


    Sure, we can talk about the best army in the game with tons of mobility working over someone else.

    Admech chose ROD with so few units that want to be tied up doing actions and no way to cross the table.

    This is a huge mistake:

    He pushed his models up, but they weren't going to be able to get far enough to see the raiders behind cover, so he exposed his unit to charges for no good reason.
    Spoiler:


    In doing so he could have brought the right most Las Chickens to the left and focused against the left-most raiders

    Spoiler:


    Of all he could shoot he killed only two boats and 5 kabalites. He needlessly exposed his long range left flank to the contents of the raiders even when he could see them without a problem.

    It's a bit much how exposed his entire army was and it's likely because this game was played back in June and he wasn't used to how god damn fast DE are. Admech lists now are way more flexible with appropriate melee support. His Dragoons were entirely caught out in the middle of the table with nowhere to go that could support the army.



    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/15 01:44:11


    Post by: Rihgu


    This is a weird/bad suggestion.

    Correct. As intended. Thank you.

    That's always the solution, isn't it? "Not having fun? Buy different models!"

    Well, one could also build, 3d print, or proxy. Whatever is determined to be the least amount of effort for the bullet-catcher unit.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/15 03:35:05


    Post by: The_Real_Chris


    I do wonder with those saying 40k isn't that deadly play many other wargames. As a rule of thumb many 'gun' games take 3 or more points than the cost of a target to eliminate it. Extreme specialisms or poor matchup's (infantry with rifles vs tanks for example) skew that one way or the other. One on one they will duel for a while, 3 on one and you should win swiftly.

    40k is judged on units getting their points back in a turn, because once you do your thing you are often a big target. I can't duel with say a tank a side because they are often equipped to kill enemy tanks in a round of shooting.

    It means the game for me plays increasingly like a CCG. I play units (and cards) to do stuff through the game with such activities likely being one way. I get their is a back and forth there and quite a lot of challenge. But do your thing and die is hard to make a narrative around.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/15 06:04:22


    Post by: ccs


     AnomanderRake wrote:
    Rihgu wrote:
     catbarf wrote:

    It is just damned demoralizing to spend the time to paint up a squad of (expensive, $-wise) troops only to have them blown off the table turn 1 before they get to do anything.


    Well, here's a solution: buy a stronger model/unit, spend minimal time/effort on it, and that unit will take the shooting instead! Simple maths.


    That's always the solution, isn't it? "Not having fun? Buy different models!"


    Basically yes.

    Like 40k but what you have just isn't working? Buy something different.
    Decide you don't like 40k, but do still like miniature gaming? Switch games & buy models for that....
    Either way, $ spent.

    Or you can simply take the "wait" (and optionally bitch about it) approach. Whatever you have? Eventually the rules will cycle back around to it being good again. This cycle could take anywhere from about 18 months to a decade+ though.... In the meantime there's still plenty of games to be played.



    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/15 07:01:10


    Post by: jeff white


    Gnarlly wrote:
    Spoiler:
     jeff white wrote:
    Some themes emerging…
    Force org should return… or not.
    Special rules should return to usr and included in main book if possible e.g. jet bikes.
    Generally, main book should have the rules, codices should describe units and how these interact with rules… mostly if not completely.
    Terrain and morale should be more realistic (for lack of a better word… maybe meaningful would be good?)
    Needing to study core rules plus expansions plus every codex to understand what is possible at any given game night is… a lot to ask, especially when many or most important rules are in codices and expansions.
    Accessibility is good… gaminess is not. (Realism helps with accessibility imho because it lets people take advantage of everyday real life intuitions in making sense of what is happening on the tabletop.)
    Movement should matter (more).
    Table is too small. Weapon ranges and ranges generally are too big relative to table size.
    Model placement should matter (more).

    I may have missed something important and likely added something not…


    Seems to me that going back to 4th/5th edition or a fan-made ruleset based on those editions would meet most of those goals/themes . . .


    Back does seem the new way forward, back and outside of the corporate envelope.

    The_Real_Chris wrote:I do wonder with those saying 40k isn't that deadly play many other wargames. As a rule of thumb many 'gun' games take 3 or more points than the cost of a target to eliminate it. Extreme specialisms or poor matchup's (infantry with rifles vs tanks for example) skew that one way or the other. One on one they will duel for a while, 3 on one and you should win swiftly.

    40k is judged on units getting their points back in a turn, because once you do your thing you are often a big target. I can't duel with say a tank a side because they are often equipped to kill enemy tanks in a round of shooting.

    It means the game for me plays increasingly like a CCG. I play units (and cards) to do stuff through the game with such activities likely being one way. I get their is a back and forth there and quite a lot of challenge. But do your thing and die is hard to make a narrative around.

    Yes, this is an increasingly common complaint. Some seem to like it … study the books and cook up the Killy whombocombos for the win. Others who want a war game to be more simulation, more about interaction, hate it. Certainly one way forward would be to allow those who want a gamey CCG with models for cards to play that game, with options for realism for others who do not. Maybe this is the rationale behind using 30k to scratch the wargame itch while focusing marketing on the gamey game CCG style because there is more money in crack chasing deck building meta players…


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/15 08:19:33


    Post by: Slipspace


     Daedalus81 wrote:

    Less lethal is really a matter of perspective.

    5 old marines standing still ( so, double tap ) kill 1.8 Boyz. 5 5th edition marines killed 1.7 with one shot and 3.4 when double tapping.
    An old TLC took a Killa Kan out of the game 40% of the time ( and if you're immobilized in a squadron...lol ). The current TLC takes one out 18% of the time.

    Dem nostalgia glasses. What people experienced was more melee since stuff like Boyz were so cheap and Rapid Fire was restricted, so it took a couple turns for units to get into each other and then they died pretty fast unless no one brought a power fist against marines and then you just stood there in a pile the rest of the game. Various points through history brought units able to close the distance fast and/or hit hard ( more in 5th forward though ).


    I'll ignore the game dissections as Daedalus doesn't seem to understand the points being made and would rather individually pick apart vague recollections of a specific game rather than engage with the overall points. Incidentally, that's why providing specific examples is often so frustrating - it's easy to miss a detail here or there and then someone jumps on that to prove some kind of point instead of looking at the situation holistically. The TTT AdMech DE game is a good example. The specifics aren't really the point. The criticism of that game was more about how it felt to watch and how deeply unsatisfying it was because of the extreme damage output and mobility, especially of the DE, which removed meaningful decisions from the game.

    Anyway, to get back to the SM vs Orks example, it severely misses the point while simultaneously illustrating the problem perfectly. Yes, the comparison between editions seems to be in favour of 9th being less deadly than 5th. However, it ignores so many important factors in order to make this point. It ignores the difficulty and danger of getting into double-tap range in 5th. It ignores that the numbers for the 5th edition SM were pretty much fixed. There wasn't really any meaningful way to improve that damage output because re-rolls weren't a thing and nor were strats. In 9th that baseline number can change dramatically with the plethora of re-rolls and various other damage buffs available via auras, strats WL traits, relics, faction bonuses and so on. In 9th we can't just take that basic number and be confident it means anything, which is why many people say the game is bloated and inaccessible. It also completely ignores that in 5th the height of anti-personnel firepower was pretty much a frag missile or heavy bolter. In 9th we have units routinely throwing 20-30 dice with various buffs.

    In short, it's a laughably bad comparison.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/15 09:54:45


    Post by: Blackie


    More or less lethal it actually depends on what units you're considering. In 5th a single lascannon shot had the power to blow up EVERY vehicle and with ork ones odds to do that were pretty high. Now it's flat out impossible, even rolling the luckiest rolls possible.

    Dice rolling has increased, and that is what makes the game more lethal now. But it's not always like that and orks are perfect example of that: in 5th or any other old edition of 40k ork vehicles were paper things, a full turn of firepower from a TAC list killed on average more models than now.

    Despite what people may think vehicles are significantly tougher now compared to the AV system age.

    Infantries are much weaker now instead since firepower has increased dramatically (units like aggressors fire 30 shots per model, while once anti infantry units could fire 5-10 and maybe with some limitations) but infantries stats has not, except for marines who double up or even got 3x (see Termies) their wounds. Orks only got +1T, and if in old edition enemies could fire 30-50 shots per turn at them but now 100+ with multiple ways to enhance those shots then game is way more lethal for them now.

    In 5th Kan wall had 80 boyz with 5+ cover save at 1500 points and those boyz looked pretty tough to delete and in fact that list archetype was among the top tiers for a while. Now killing 80 boyz, even with 5++, is not really that difficult, anyone could deal with something like that.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/15 11:01:51


    Post by: Tyel


    I think the issue is that older editions had lots of limiting factors on firepower. So on paper the numbers might have been the same if you lined up in musket lines on planet bowling ball.

    But in practice they wouldn't be because you couldn't for example split fire (except with things like Long Fangs). Want to shoot a heavy weapon? Well you better not have moved, otherwise no (barring a special rule etc). Vehicles could die to a single Lascannon - but Rhinos were... 35 points (I can't remember)? So its not exactly the end of the world. You are highly likely to inefficiently use your damage potential than now.

    The issue today is you have armies with sufficient movement and range to effectively deliver their damage into whatever their player wants. So my Anti-X shoots X, my Anti-Y shoots Y, my Anti-literally everything assault unit charges whatever I like. Its sort of balanced because my opponent is doing exactly the same thing back to me - but it does mean everything is dead before you need to make a decision. We are effectively playing checkers.

    (Not that I think 5th was in any respect a high point, and many of those limiting factors above served to remove "serious" decisions and served to create "feels bad" moments - but still.)


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/15 12:03:50


    Post by: aphyon


    Back does seem the new way forward, back and outside of the corporate envelope.


    Well if it is any comfort one has to but look at what Andy Chambers has been working on since he left GW in late 4th ed when it comes to game design to see what could have been.

    He has games that use action cards(blood red skies), games that use alternating activation, reaction mechanics etc...(DUST, bolt action etc..)

    How hard these ideas could have been to convert into the 40K universe is hard to say ( i bet Andy could pull it off) but i have a feeling it would be in a better place.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/15 12:30:37


    Post by: the_scotsman


    The_Real_Chris wrote:
    I do wonder with those saying 40k isn't that deadly play many other wargames. As a rule of thumb many 'gun' games take 3 or more points than the cost of a target to eliminate it. Extreme specialisms or poor matchup's (infantry with rifles vs tanks for example) skew that one way or the other. One on one they will duel for a while, 3 on one and you should win swiftly.

    40k is judged on units getting their points back in a turn, because once you do your thing you are often a big target. I can't duel with say a tank a side because they are often equipped to kill enemy tanks in a round of shooting.

    It means the game for me plays increasingly like a CCG. I play units (and cards) to do stuff through the game with such activities likely being one way. I get their is a back and forth there and quite a lot of challenge. But do your thing and die is hard to make a narrative around.


    ^This.

    Typically, if youre trying to construct some kind of narrative around what your troops/characters/whoever are doing, it might help if you could take more than one single action after you've finished cowering behind LOS blocking terrain.

    Games that are meaningfully over after a single turn or two turns of real combat are deeply unsatisfying and an increasing percentage of my games of 9th edition 40k.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/15 12:45:07


    Post by: Daedalus81


    Slipspace wrote:
     Daedalus81 wrote:

    Less lethal is really a matter of perspective.

    5 old marines standing still ( so, double tap ) kill 1.8 Boyz. 5 5th edition marines killed 1.7 with one shot and 3.4 when double tapping.
    An old TLC took a Killa Kan out of the game 40% of the time ( and if you're immobilized in a squadron...lol ). The current TLC takes one out 18% of the time.

    Dem nostalgia glasses. What people experienced was more melee since stuff like Boyz were so cheap and Rapid Fire was restricted, so it took a couple turns for units to get into each other and then they died pretty fast unless no one brought a power fist against marines and then you just stood there in a pile the rest of the game. Various points through history brought units able to close the distance fast and/or hit hard ( more in 5th forward though ).


    I'll ignore the game dissections as Daedalus doesn't seem to understand the points being made and would rather individually pick apart vague recollections of a specific game rather than engage with the overall points. Incidentally, that's why providing specific examples is often so frustrating - it's easy to miss a detail here or there and then someone jumps on that to prove some kind of point instead of looking at the situation holistically. The TTT AdMech DE game is a good example. The specifics aren't really the point. The criticism of that game was more about how it felt to watch and how deeply unsatisfying it was because of the extreme damage output and mobility, especially of the DE, which removed meaningful decisions from the game.

    Anyway, to get back to the SM vs Orks example, it severely misses the point while simultaneously illustrating the problem perfectly. Yes, the comparison between editions seems to be in favour of 9th being less deadly than 5th. However, it ignores so many important factors in order to make this point. It ignores the difficulty and danger of getting into double-tap range in 5th. It ignores that the numbers for the 5th edition SM were pretty much fixed. There wasn't really any meaningful way to improve that damage output because re-rolls weren't a thing and nor were strats. In 9th that baseline number can change dramatically with the plethora of re-rolls and various other damage buffs available via auras, strats WL traits, relics, faction bonuses and so on. In 9th we can't just take that basic number and be confident it means anything, which is why many people say the game is bloated and inaccessible. It also completely ignores that in 5th the height of anti-personnel firepower was pretty much a frag missile or heavy bolter. In 9th we have units routinely throwing 20-30 dice with various buffs.

    In short, it's a laughably bad comparison.


    *sigh*

    First, that game was hard to watch, because it was played really badly. It's like saying a skew list crushing someone is representative of the game. It isn't.

    Second, those increases come at a cost. You don't just magically get better for nothing. And this is another pivot point for 40K. What did characters do back then? Basically nothing but fight or change unit org. Now characters give rerolls or other buffs and fight less often.

    Those are laughably bad comparisons.



    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/15 13:02:28


    Post by: Slipspace


    If you think comparing the damage output of a unit from two different editions without taking into account the various damage buffs available now when one of the things specifically being complained about is the prevalence of those buffs and how they make the unit stats much less relevant is helpful or even directly comparable then you do you I guess. I'll leave others to decide which comparison is most useful in the context of this discussion.

    As for yet more armchair generalship over the TTT game from you, I'd simply point out it's the only 9th edition video they've done that got the reaction from the viewers that it did. You're welcome to assume absolutely everyone else is wrong and there is no problem here. Again, I'll leave others to decide what the best conclusion is.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/15 13:21:03


    Post by: the_scotsman


    The best quality games of 9th I play are when I play with a newbie and leave out all stratagems, subfactions, relics, wl traits, etc because theyre still learning the game.

    The game is still simple, but the actual tactical decisions I undertake are basically unchanged - stuff just takes way longer to die and stuff like the alternating close combat phase and fighting over objectives by adding more models actually starts to matter and influence the game.

    So maybe 9th is just better than 5th, and the secret to enjoying oneself is just to slice off the solid 50% of meaningless bloat that's been piled on top of it.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/15 13:25:26


    Post by: Unit1126PLL


     the_scotsman wrote:
    The best quality games of 9th I play are when I play with a newbie and leave out all stratagems, subfactions, relics, wl traits, etc because theyre still learning the game.

    The game is still simple, but the actual tactical decisions I undertake are basically unchanged - stuff just takes way longer to die and stuff like the alternating close combat phase and fighting over objectives by adding more models actually starts to matter and influence the game.

    So maybe 9th is just better than 5th, and the secret to enjoying oneself is just to slice off the solid 50% of meaningless bloat that's been piled on top of it.


    The downside of this, to me, is the loss of flavor/narrative. Consider the following quote, only replace "out of command points" with "don't have stratagems this game".

     Unit1126PLL wrote:
    Captain Krassus screamed into the vox: "All Armageddon Steel Legion, raise high the black banners, now is our time! Fix bayonets!" signaling the epic charge.

    BUT he couldn't have predicted the cunning of the Rule System, his true foe:
    "Sir, we're out of command points, you can't give orders from within a Chimera!" screamed the driver, as he repeatedly shifted from reverse to forwards, jerkily trying to run Orks over like the zamboni scene in Austin Powers. After all, only a fool would drive past enemy infantry that offered practically no threat and bypass hardened positions with maneuver - and the mechanized units of the Armageddon Steel Legion were no fools!

    And thusly on the cusp of victory did the planet of Armageddon fall, defeated not by the cleverness of his foe or superior force or tactics, but by the universal laws which this commander foolishly disregarded when he embarked upon his mechanized transport. Who was he to think he could give orders from a Chimera freely? To be a man in such times...


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/15 13:35:35


    Post by: the_scotsman


    Sure. but every edition has had some kind of stupid rule shenanigan that absolutely breaks immersion. I'm under no illusions that 5th edition or any other edition perfectly captured versimilitude, it's just a matter of what unrealistic gak you're willing to put up with.

    Would you prefer 'can't issue orders from a chimera' or 'your command squad is a separate unit that can't do anything to hide from my guns, I can always shoot out your commanders before engaging your troops even though I can't attack the Commissar right next to them because HES an independent character' or 'welp, your Leman Russ ran over a bush, RAW you have a 1/6 chance of being permanently immobilized!' or 'aha, i have cunningly gotten a unit with a hidden sergeant with a power klaw into the very front of your leman russ tank, RAW they now teleport behind it, say 'NOTHING PERSONAL' in japanese and your tank commander has just enough time to yell 'NANI???' before exploding'


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/15 13:41:43


    Post by: Unit1126PLL


     the_scotsman wrote:
    Sure. but every edition has had some kind of stupid rule shenanigan that absolutely breaks immersion. I'm under no illusions that 5th edition or any other edition perfectly captured versimilitude, it's just a matter of what unrealistic gak you're willing to put up with.

    Would you prefer 'can't issue orders from a chimera' or 'your command squad is a separate unit that can't do anything to hide from my guns, I can always shoot out your commanders before engaging your troops even though I can't attack the Commissar right next to them because HES an independent character' or 'welp, your Leman Russ ran over a bush, RAW you have a 1/6 chance of being permanently immobilized!' or 'aha, i have cunningly gotten a unit with a hidden sergeant with a power klaw into the very front of your leman russ tank, RAW they now teleport behind it, say 'NOTHING PERSONAL' in japanese and your tank commander has just enough time to yell 'NANI???' before exploding'


    Actually, yes, given that the Command Squad thing used the Retinue rules (meaning the officer was an independent character if the squad was destroyed) and in 4th could be protected by anything from the Target Priority rules to choosing an optimal deployment location (given that radios were actually boardwide back then). Just like the officer, an Independent Character takes hits when their squad is destroyed, so the only REAL difference between the two is that the Commissar can attach to a larger squad should he choose. Not that he was less targetable.

    Also in 4th, CC weapons hit the facing they were in.

    Tanks being immobilized in difficult terrain literally happens - in fact, it happens worse than 1/6th of the time for tanks that share the Russ's visual lineage. Did you know that 60% (roughly 1-4 on a D6) of T-35s were abandoned by their crews due to breakdowns in 1941? (Also, it's worth noting that, in 4th, the 1 in 6 was modifiable by things like Rough Terrain Modifications, Dozer Blades, Auxiliary Drives, Skilled Drivers, etc. and is largely a consequence of the D6 system).

    Things like this were why a modified 4th is my ideal 40k.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/15 13:59:04


    Post by: Rihgu


     Unit1126PLL wrote:
     the_scotsman wrote:
    The best quality games of 9th I play are when I play with a newbie and leave out all stratagems, subfactions, relics, wl traits, etc because theyre still learning the game.

    The game is still simple, but the actual tactical decisions I undertake are basically unchanged - stuff just takes way longer to die and stuff like the alternating close combat phase and fighting over objectives by adding more models actually starts to matter and influence the game.

    So maybe 9th is just better than 5th, and the secret to enjoying oneself is just to slice off the solid 50% of meaningless bloat that's been piled on top of it.


    The downside of this, to me, is the loss of flavor/narrative. Consider the following quote, only replace "out of command points" with "don't have stratagems this game".

     Unit1126PLL wrote:
    Captain Krassus screamed into the vox: "All Armageddon Steel Legion, raise high the black banners, now is our time! Fix bayonets!" signaling the epic charge.

    BUT he couldn't have predicted the cunning of the Rule System, his true foe:
    "Sir, we're out of command points, you can't give orders from within a Chimera!" screamed the driver, as he repeatedly shifted from reverse to forwards, jerkily trying to run Orks over like the zamboni scene in Austin Powers. After all, only a fool would drive past enemy infantry that offered practically no threat and bypass hardened positions with maneuver - and the mechanized units of the Armageddon Steel Legion were no fools!

    And thusly on the cusp of victory did the planet of Armageddon fall, defeated not by the cleverness of his foe or superior force or tactics, but by the universal laws which this commander foolishly disregarded when he embarked upon his mechanized transport. Who was he to think he could give orders from a Chimera freely? To be a man in such times...


    Your description here actually details a few tactical decisions that, while they may not be super narrative, seem to be what some people are looking for in 40k.
    Does the officer keep the protection of the Chimera, or step out to employ orders?
    Does the chimera use maneuver to avoid the ork infantry unit, or does it try to push through directly?

    It would appear in your showcase that the commander made 2 unwise tactical decisions (kept the protection of the Chimera, and charged into the ork infantry unit). Well, always time to learn for next game!


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/15 15:01:22


    Post by: catbarf


     Blackie wrote:
    Despite what people may think vehicles are significantly tougher now compared to the AV system age.


    This is not true as a categorical statement. Things that were AV10/AV11 have gotten tougher, but anything AV12+ is now more vulnerable.

    A single lascannon could kill a Leman Russ in one shot. On average, though, in 5th Ed a lascannon had to penetrate to have any chance of killing it outright, and just a 1-in-3 chance of a kill if it did penetrate. Against AV14 front, that meant an average of 18 lascannon hits to destroy a Leman Russ.

    In 9th Ed it takes an average of 6.17 lascannon hits to kill a Russ. Barely over a third the survivability. And there's never just one lascannon.

    Yes, there are other damage effects that could impact a vehicle in 5th Ed- a lascannon had a 1-in-3 chance to inflict some sort of damage, which would typically incapacitate the Russ for a turn. Exactly half the time, it would be accompanied by no lasting damage. Because stun effects didn't stack, there were severe diminishing returns to focusing fire.

    So in one system, engaging a tank from the front arc with even dedicated anti-tank weapons has a very low chance of actually destroying it, but a decent chance of temporarily incapacitating it, giving you time to deal with more pressing threats or engage from a more favorable distance and angle. When damage is sustained, it is more likely to be weapon loss or immobilization than outright destruction, reducing the vehicle's capabilities but generally still leaving it as a threat.

    And in the other system, a tank that pokes out of LOS-blocking terrain is not likely to survive, and reaches irrelevance (BS6+ and 4" move, thanks damage brackets) even before that happens.

    I certainly see a lot fewer tanks on the table now than I did in 5th.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/15 15:07:22


    Post by: Daedalus81


    Slipspace wrote:
    If you think comparing the damage output of a unit from two different editions without taking into account the various damage buffs available now when one of the things specifically being complained about is the prevalence of those buffs and how they make the unit stats much less relevant is helpful or even directly comparable then you do you I guess. I'll leave others to decide which comparison is most useful in the context of this discussion.

    As for yet more armchair generalship over the TTT game from you, I'd simply point out it's the only 9th edition video they've done that got the reaction from the viewers that it did. You're welcome to assume absolutely everyone else is wrong and there is no problem here. Again, I'll leave others to decide what the best conclusion is.


    There's a problem with DE and there's a problem with some other units. Yes, there are videos of people getting stomped - even worse than your example is the one from AoW where he forces the other guy to keep playing. There are far more where this doesn't happen. If you simply want to ignore choices that were made that created a worse outcome then we can all pretend 40K is nothing but a dice simulator.

    Unit didn't get stomped. He just didn't like models getting removed in a sequence. Scotsman played skew lists in a mission that supported that skew with models that probably shouldn't be in 40K.

    I will bet that if competitive sensibilities were taken back to older editions you'd find similar problems. We didn't have them back then, because we were 10 to 20 years old with no real forums for discussion and no access to data to create a wider sense of how things worked. No one really did mathhammer back then. They certainly didn't on the AOL chat room. The younger crowd was also unaware how to abuse pythag and other measurements to get around no pre-measure, which is probably the biggest thing that kept units alive.

    The vast majority of changes in 9th has reduced killing power and increased defense and yet here we are complaining MORE about things dying than we did in 8th. Just because people want to complain about multiple units focusing a single unit of theirs doesn't mean things are out of whack, broadly speaking.

    I am genuinely sorry that you guys are unable to develop a story with units, because they die frequently, but if you are willing to write your own scenarios and someone is willing to play it then you can continue to tweak it to promote the behavior you want. What better story than a company trying to assail a fort to detonate it from within while the rest of the army covers it's advance? Maybe even throw in that only visible models can die and see how it goes.



    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/15 15:18:44


    Post by: catbarf


     Daedalus81 wrote:
    I will bet that if competitive sensibilities were taken back to older editions you'd find similar problems. We didn't have them back then, because we were 10 to 20 years old with no real forums for discussion and no access to data to create a wider sense of how things worked. No one really did mathhammer back then.


    You have a very different recollection of 2000s-era Librarium-Online, Warseer, or Dakka than I do. Especially considering the existence of meta/netlists like like Rhino Rush or Leafblower. We may not have had Facebook and Reddit for soliciting advice but it was not hard for a teenager in the 2000s to find competitive 40K lists and tactics.

    I also want to point out that we have plenty of examples on this forum of people being dissatisfied with their current experiences with 8th/9th, going back to earlier editions, and having a better time of it. Are you suggesting that they're all playing 9th competitively, and then switching to non-competitive when they go back to 4th or 5th? I don't think that's the case; I think people are approaching older editions with the same mindset and finding it's a better fit for their expectations.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/15 16:12:08


    Post by: Unit1126PLL


    Rihgu wrote:


    Your description here actually details a few tactical decisions that, while they may not be super narrative, seem to be what some people are looking for in 40k.
    Does the officer keep the protection of the Chimera, or step out to employ orders?
    Does the chimera use maneuver to avoid the ork infantry unit, or does it try to push through directly?

    It would appear in your showcase that the commander made 2 unwise tactical decisions (kept the protection of the Chimera, and charged into the ork infantry unit). Well, always time to learn for next game!

    The problem here is the dissonance between what the player decides and what options would be realistically available.

    "I would like to both give orders using the Chimera's radio AND stay embarked"
    Well, you can't. Because I said so.

    "I would like to use my armored bulk to push through the orks rather than being bogged down by axemen."
    Well, you can't. Because I said so.

    The game rules are actively inhibiting the tactical decisions by the commander. So when you settle for the false choice, it doesn't feel like a choice I made.
    "Why did you disembark from the chimera?"
    "Because the rules said I had to in order to command my troops"

    It's a choice that doesn't feel tactical because the actually tactical options simply don't exist to be executed. And that was the point you missed.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    In other words, "what tactical option, would you like to execute, player?"

    Answering with "I want my armored vehicles to push through the enemy lines where they lack anti-tank power" is responded to by:

    "Well you can't, what else?"

    "Well I would like to employ my officers in charge to command my men to clear the way for my tanks."

    "Nope, can't do that tactic either"

    "Well why the hell are you asking me what tactics I can use if you just outright constrain my realistic and reasonable choices?"


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/15 16:19:48


    Post by: Rihgu


    "I would like to both advance and also fire my weapons"
    Well, you can't. Because I said so.

    "I would like to both advance and charge into combat"
    Well, you can't. Because I said so.

    They're not *not* tactical options just because they're limited by what the game rules determine are options.

    It's not very much of a decision to get to give orders AND stay embarked. You're just doing both things, there's no trade offs. Commanding vs Protection is a choice. It's not a false choice, like... "Stay protected AND command, or command and also lose protection". That choice has been made for you, by there being nothing but downsides for the "second option".

    WARgame vs warGAME, I guess. From a GAME perspective, there are choices and they're not false ones, at least in the barebones context presented here. From a WAR perspective, sure, it doesn't make sense that your vehicle can't just rush through the Orks, but that's not the ruleset we're working with here.

    Do you take 3-4 turns to go around the Orks with Movement or do you take 2-3 turns to charge into the orks and hope the pitiful melee/decent shooting you provide thins them enough to open up a fall back past them? That's a GAME choice.

    "Well why the hell are you asking me what tactics I can use if you just outright constrain my realistic and reasonable choices?"

    "Well, I kind of thought you had read the ruleset enough to know which options were available before the game."


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/15 16:26:37


    Post by: Unit1126PLL


    Right. Exactly.

    "Tactics" is a military term, a WAR term. Not a GAME term (at least not to me).

    A "tactical" choice is a decision made in a military context.

    To say it is "more (or less) tactical" to stay inside the chimera than it would be to disembark is just nonsense. It may be more or less sensible given the GAME mechanics, but it isn't a "tactics" choice.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    Rihgu wrote:

    "Well, I kind of thought you had read the ruleset enough to know which options were available before the game."


    "I did, which is why I am complaining about said ruleset tactically constraining me for no reason."


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/15 16:34:41


    Post by: Rihgu


    Well, that has got to be the most frustrating and perhaps nonsensical response I've ever had directed at me. *Why* would you even BEGIN to discuss "tactical options" in a context, where, to you, it doesn't even make SENSE?

    Yea, okay, 40k isn't a war. Sure. There's no tactics at all. There's not a single board game, computer game, war game, roleplaying game, sports game, etc. out there that has any tactics.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/15 16:47:15


    Post by: Daedalus81


     catbarf wrote:
    You have a very different recollection of 2000s-era Librarium-Online, Warseer, or Dakka than I do. Especially considering the existence of meta/netlists like like Rhino Rush or Leafblower. We may not have had Facebook and Reddit for soliciting advice but it was not hard for a teenager in the 2000s to find competitive 40K lists and tactics.


    Well, my comment goes way back to like early and pre-5th edition. Leafblower was 2010 and that's when people started to analyze that info. 'Ard Boyz popped up around 2007, I think. Of the 40+ year 40K history only 10 have really been like that. Of that 10 eight or so years have been under 6th and foward. It seems like so long ago, but it really wasn't.

    I also want to point out that we have plenty of examples on this forum of people being dissatisfied with their current experiences with 8th/9th, going back to earlier editions, and having a better time of it. Are you suggesting that they're all playing 9th competitively, and then switching to non-competitive when they go back to 4th or 5th? I don't think that's the case; I think people are approaching older editions with the same mindset and finding it's a better fit for their expectations.


    There's Competitive and competitive. The former is seeking out the best opponents and testing skill. The latter is doing your best to win a game. People hiking back to older editions have a smaller pool of people to play with and so you don't get a uniform desire to be Competitive. You just play with the people available and that's it.

    So it may be a better fit for expectations which are rooted in nostalgia, but, no, they were not Competitive so to speak.




    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/15 16:56:05


    Post by: Unit1126PLL


    Rihgu wrote:
    Well, that has got to be the most frustrating and perhaps nonsensical response I've ever had directed at me. *Why* would you even BEGIN to discuss "tactical options" in a context, where, to you, it doesn't even make SENSE?

    Yea, okay, 40k isn't a war. Sure. There's no tactics at all. There's not a single board game, computer game, war game, roleplaying game, sports game, etc. out there that has any tactics.


    That's not true at all.

    Some games actually attempt to reflect the reality they're played in. If a decision is militarily unsound, it will also be game-wise unsound, and if a decision is militarily sensible, it will be game-wise sensible. Things like "don't run out in front of that machine gun" or "use anti-tank weapons on armored vehicles" or "obscure enemy sight with smoke before leaving your trench otherwise you'll get shot up" are some examples of things that are both militarily true and true in game designs.

    Furthermore, when a conflict between what the players believe to be realistic and what the rules say appears, the rules actually say don't follow the rules. Chain of Command's catchphrase is "play the period, not the rules." This means that in the case where something doesn't make sense, you fix the rules, rather than slavishly following them. I can give examples on request.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/15 17:06:54


    Post by: Rihgu


    Some games actually attempt to reflect the reality they're played in. If a decision is militarily unsound, it will also be game-wise unsound, and if a decision is militarily sensible, it will be game-wise sensible. Things like "don't run out in front of that machine gun" or "use anti-tank weapons on armored vehicles" or "obscure enemy sight with smoke before leaving your trench otherwise you'll get shot up" are some examples of things that are both militarily true and true in game designs.

    But it's not in a military context, so it's not tactics or tactical choices. It is choices that mirror tactics, at best. Hence why your reply was so frustrating. This isn't a conversation I'd engage in, as you have this context to words known only to you. If you had replied to me and said "well, tactics apply to military context's" I'd have said "okay, my post was less a direct reply to you and more directed towards the people who engaged in the "tactical decisions in 40k" thread, and your passage there just happened to show some choices that people said they'd prefer/said didn't exist" and left it at that. Because your passage really does show some interesting tabletop decisions to be thought about and made. There are pros/cons to each of the choices detailed, and given the vague context of the passage there's no obviously correct/incorrect answer (ie, false choices). It's not the "false choice" situation that the game suffers from with stratagems and command points. Of course the correct choice is to use Veterans of the Long War. It's a pure buff with no upside, I don't need to make a decision there. Of course I move onto the objective and fire through the dense cover, there's no downside since I can only have a -1 to my hit roll and I'm going to be taking it no matter what. But the question of "Do I disembark to be able to give orders" or "Do I attempt to skirt around, or charge with my Chimera?" have weight to them.

    Instead it feels like we had a conversation and then you pulled out a "Well, actually, that word doesn't mean what you think it means". Cool, sorry for wasting both of our times with the interim posts.

    Furthermore, when a conflict between what the players believe to be realistic and what the rules say appears, the rules actually say don't follow the rules.

    As does 40k:
    THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE
    In a game as detailed and wide-ranging as Warhammer 40,000, there may be times when you are not sure exactly how to resolve a situation that has come up during play. When this happens, have a quick chat with your opponent and apply the solution that makes the most sense to both of you (or seems the most fun!). If no single solution presents itself, you and your opponent should roll off, and whoever rolls highest gets to choose what happens. Then you can get on with the fighting!



    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/15 17:19:42


    Post by: catbarf


    Rihgu wrote:
    "I would like to both advance and also fire my weapons"
    Well, you can't. Because I said so.

    "I would like to both advance and charge into combat"
    Well, you can't. Because I said so.


    Well, the difference between your examples and Unit's is that yours make sense. Heavy weapons are supposed to be those that require setup times that preclude being used when moving at full speed. Advancing being an alternative to charging means charging doesn't just give you bonus movement, so they're both different flavors of 'on the double' compared to normal, cautious movement.

    A commander not being able to use the radio of a command vehicle- except as a special ability tied to an abstract resource based on force composition at the start of the game- doesn't particularly make sense. It's a game-y restriction that shifts the decision points away from what we might recognize as real-world tactics and more to something akin to the abstract internal logic of M:TG.

    Obviously the complaint is not that the game puts restrictions on what you can do. Of course it does. Every game does. If anything, I'd argue 9th doesn't do it enough. The actual complaint is that the restrictions placed on what you can do are not conducive to the verisimilitude of the game, and that's what Unit is looking for in his play experience.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/15 17:20:11


    Post by: Unit1126PLL


    Rihgu wrote:
    Some games actually attempt to reflect the reality they're played in. If a decision is militarily unsound, it will also be game-wise unsound, and if a decision is militarily sensible, it will be game-wise sensible. Things like "don't run out in front of that machine gun" or "use anti-tank weapons on armored vehicles" or "obscure enemy sight with smoke before leaving your trench otherwise you'll get shot up" are some examples of things that are both militarily true and true in game designs.

    But it's not in a military context, so it's not tactics or tactical choices. It is choices that mirror tactics, at best. Hence why your reply was so frustrating. This isn't a conversation I'd engage in, as you have this context to words known only to you. If you had replied to me and said "well, tactics apply to military context's" I'd have said "okay, my post was less a direct reply to you and more directed towards the people who engaged in the "tactical decisions in 40k" thread, and your passage there just happened to show some choices that people said they'd prefer/said didn't exist" and left it at that. Because your passage really does show some interesting tabletop decisions to be thought about and made. There are pros/cons to each of the choices detailed, and given the vague context of the passage there's no obviously correct/incorrect answer (ie, false choices). It's not the "false choice" situation that the game suffers from with stratagems and command points. Of course the correct choice is to use Veterans of the Long War. It's a pure buff with no upside, I don't need to make a decision there. Of course I move onto the objective and fire through the dense cover, there's no downside since I can only have a -1 to my hit roll and I'm going to be taking it no matter what. But the question of "Do I disembark to be able to give orders" or "Do I attempt to skirt around, or charge with my Chimera?" have weight to them..
    Instead it feels like we had a conversation and then you pulled out a "Well, actually, that word doesn't mean what you think it means". Cool, sorry for wasting both of our times with the interim posts.

    I mean, you jumped down my throat about a narrative I wrote trying to make the point about game-isms. You couldn't have missed the initial point harder if you tried, and now that you realize how badly you missed it, you can't just be like "Man I AM SO FRUSTRATED!"

    Like, the point of my little narrative is that the rules don't match reality. Trying to claim "but look at all the tactical decisions he could have made differently using the in-game rules!" is going to inevitably devolve into a comparison of how close those in-game rules come to reality. I'm surprised you are so frustrated after missing the point so hard. I genuinely thought you were trying to get a rise out of me - that's how hard you missed the point of the original post.

    Rihgu wrote:
    Furthermore, when a conflict between what the players believe to be realistic and what the rules say appears, the rules actually say don't follow the rules.

    As does 40k:
    THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE
    In a game as detailed and wide-ranging as Warhammer 40,000, there may be times when you are not sure exactly how to resolve a situation that has come up during play. When this happens, have a quick chat with your opponent and apply the solution that makes the most sense to both of you (or seems the most fun!). If no single solution presents itself, you and your opponent should roll off, and whoever rolls highest gets to choose what happens. Then you can get on with the fighting!



    Guess what happens when I invoke TMIR from 40k in a 40k game versus what happens when I invoke "Play the Period" from Chain of Command?

    Here's some examples:
    "The T-35 actually has a radio - in fact, most of the ways the different T-35s in photographs can be differentiated is by what type of radio aerial they had around the turret. Therefore, the T-35 should be exempt from the 'no radios on early war Russian tanks' rule."
    "Yeah, mate, makes sense to me. I can even see the radio aerial on that model, looks great! Love the weathering you did where you bent the corner there."
    - Chain of Command PtP

    "The officer can give orders out of a Chimera. This happens many times in the fluff, both in codexes and out of codexes, where Imperial Guard mechanized units are depicted. Such an example is the Ciaphas Cain series, which explicitly follows the tale of a Valhallan mechanized unit. I think my officer should be able to give orders out of his Chimera without spending a CP, or even with spending a CP but more than once per turn."
    "Nope, sorry, that's not the rules." [beat] "I guess we can do it now - I feel bad saying no - but in the future, don't ask me; I think it's rude that you'd ask to break the rules in your favor."
    - 40k TMIP

    Furthermore, and most importantly, the 40k rule only applies when the players are not sure how to exactly resolve a situation that arises during play. This is explicitly not related to the rules accurately reflecting the reality of the setting. By contrast, Chain of Command's ruleset explicitly calls out situations where reality doesn't line up with the rules, so err on the side of reality.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/15 17:22:59


    Post by: Rihgu


     Unit1126PLL wrote:
    Rihgu wrote:
    Some games actually attempt to reflect the reality they're played in. If a decision is militarily unsound, it will also be game-wise unsound, and if a decision is militarily sensible, it will be game-wise sensible. Things like "don't run out in front of that machine gun" or "use anti-tank weapons on armored vehicles" or "obscure enemy sight with smoke before leaving your trench otherwise you'll get shot up" are some examples of things that are both militarily true and true in game designs.

    But it's not in a military context, so it's not tactics or tactical choices. It is choices that mirror tactics, at best. Hence why your reply was so frustrating. This isn't a conversation I'd engage in, as you have this context to words known only to you. If you had replied to me and said "well, tactics apply to military context's" I'd have said "okay, my post was less a direct reply to you and more directed towards the people who engaged in the "tactical decisions in 40k" thread, and your passage there just happened to show some choices that people said they'd prefer/said didn't exist" and left it at that. Because your passage really does show some interesting tabletop decisions to be thought about and made. There are pros/cons to each of the choices detailed, and given the vague context of the passage there's no obviously correct/incorrect answer (ie, false choices). It's not the "false choice" situation that the game suffers from with stratagems and command points. Of course the correct choice is to use Veterans of the Long War. It's a pure buff with no upside, I don't need to make a decision there. Of course I move onto the objective and fire through the dense cover, there's no downside since I can only have a -1 to my hit roll and I'm going to be taking it no matter what. But the question of "Do I disembark to be able to give orders" or "Do I attempt to skirt around, or charge with my Chimera?" have weight to them..
    Instead it feels like we had a conversation and then you pulled out a "Well, actually, that word doesn't mean what you think it means". Cool, sorry for wasting both of our times with the interim posts.

    I mean, you jumped down my throat about a narrative I wrote trying to make the point about game-isms. You couldn't have missed the initial point harder if you tried, and now that you realize how badly you missed it, you can't just be like "Man I AM SO FRUSTRATED!"

    Emphasis my own. I didn't jump down anybody's throat. I made a post that happened to use your own post as a talking point, that wasn't even a direct response to you. Nor was it in any way addressing any point you were making, let alone refuting it. Nor did I present myself as not missing the point.

    edit: for complete clarity, my point in my post that used your post as an example was that taking away stratagems and/or command points does lead to more meaningful tabletop decisions. I was not meaning to refute your point about loss of narrative. I even acknowledge in my response that what I'm talking about isn't narrative. Again, I wasn't addressing or refuting your point, I was making my own on an unrelated topic, and your post was a good example in support of it.

    edit again: The frustration arises from the fact that I thought you were engaging with my point and not that you were apparently more interested in showing off you have more knowledge of the meaning of the word tactical than I do. But either you missed my point as hard as you thought I missed yours or we've been yelling at strawmen of our own construction vaguely shaped like each other who happen to be having separate conversations from what the real versions of ourselves are.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/15 17:34:03


    Post by: AnomanderRake


    ccs wrote:
    ...Like 40k but what you have just isn't working? Buy something different.
    Decide you don't like 40k, but do still like miniature gaming? Switch games & buy models for that....
    Either way, $ spent.

    Or you can simply take the "wait" (and optionally bitch about it) approach. Whatever you have? Eventually the rules will cycle back around to it being good again. This cycle could take anywhere from about 18 months to a decade+ though.... In the meantime there's still plenty of games to be played.



    I'm alternately amused and frustrated by the people who insist 9th is the best, most balanced edition ever in one breath and then turn around and tell me "yeah, but if you want to participate you need to buy different models" when I point out that that isn't my experience, or tell me that there's no point spending a hundred dollars on other minis games because they won't get to play with them while happily blowing a thousand dollars on a new 40k army every 6-8 months to replace the one that just got nerfed into the ground and they'll never play again. The sheer speed with which GW nerfs, squats, or renders irrelevant through power creep models that they still try to sell players using the "buy minis you like, you'll be fine!" mantra is mind-blowing to me, as is the lengths to which players will go to justify it.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/15 17:44:53


    Post by: Racerguy180


    Unit1126PLL wrote:Right. Exactly.

    "Tactics" is a military term, a WAR term. Not a GAME term (at least not to me).

    A "tactical" choice is a decision made in a military context.

    To say it is "more (or less) tactical" to stay inside the chimera than it would be to disembark is just nonsense. It may be more or less sensible given the GAME mechanics, but it isn't a "tactics" choice.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    Rihgu wrote:

    "Well, I kind of thought you had read the ruleset enough to know which options were available before the game."


    "I did, which is why I am complaining about said ruleset tactically constraining me for no reason."
    The whole no aura/orders while embarked is fething stupid. More Game BS, less war...
    Do they cease to be able to effectively while embarked??? What, Astartes don't have radios? Every guard vehicle either???


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/15 18:10:19


    Post by: Daedalus81


    Racerguy180 wrote:
    The whole no aura/orders while embarked is fething stupid. More Game BS, less war...
    Do they cease to be able to effectively while embarked??? What, Astartes don't have radios? Every guard vehicle either???


    I imagine you're going to see that change in their new 'dex.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/15 18:21:52


    Post by: Unit1126PLL


     Daedalus81 wrote:
    Racerguy180 wrote:
    The whole no aura/orders while embarked is fething stupid. More Game BS, less war...
    Do they cease to be able to effectively while embarked??? What, Astartes don't have radios? Every guard vehicle either???


    I imagine you're going to see that change in their new 'dex.


    Just like we did for all the other vehicles in 9th edit-

    Oh wait no, only Guard has radios in their tanks, sorry, carry on.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/15 18:35:27


    Post by: aphyon


    Second, those increases come at a cost. You don't just magically get better for nothing. And this is another pivot point for 40K. What did characters do back then? Basically nothing but fight or change unit org. Now characters give rerolls or other buffs and fight less often.



    That's not true at all, sure they were a beat stick when they got into combat themselves, but they also gave the entire army special rules-Vulkan he'stan improving all your meltas/flamers and thunder hammers, shrike gave you army wide fleet USR, the khan outflank and so on.

    Does the officer keep the protection of the Chimera, or step out to employ orders?


    Ever heard of a radio? like others have pointed out in previous editions VOX casters used to be a very important thing in a guard army that had a huge impact on how they fought.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/15 18:42:09


    Post by: Rihgu


    aphyon wrote:


    Does the officer keep the protection of the Chimera, or step out to employ orders?


    Ever heard of a radio? like others have pointed out in previous editions VOX casters used to be a very important thing in a guard army that had a huge impact on how they fought.


    To re-iterate, I wasn't talking about narrative in any capacity. It is a tabletop decision, not a narrative decision.

    And anyways, the Chimera does have a radio, judging by how if you use the stratagem to give orders from inside of it you count as being within 3" of a vox-caster. But that is neither here nor there.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/15 18:46:35


    Post by: Racerguy180


    What the hell is my jump-pack chaplain supposed to do? Sit there and buff gak...umm no. Oh he'll buff gak, but he's gonna smash some heretics/gaunts/boys whatever.

    My Terminator capt w thunderhammer, oh right he's not supposed to find the biggest thing and charge it. He's supposed to just sit back and buff shooting and do nothing else.

    I could go on for my other armies as well but I think the point is made.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/15 18:56:12


    Post by: JNAProductions


    aphyon wrote:
    Second, those increases come at a cost. You don't just magically get better for nothing. And this is another pivot point for 40K. What did characters do back then? Basically nothing but fight or change unit org. Now characters give rerolls or other buffs and fight less often.



    That's not true at all, sure they were a beat stick when they got into combat themselves, but they also gave the entire army special rules-Vulkan he'stan improving all your meltas/flamers and thunder hammers, shrike gave you army wide fleet USR, the khan outflank and so on.

    Does the officer keep the protection of the Chimera, or step out to employ orders?


    Ever heard of a radio? like others have pointed out in previous editions VOX casters used to be a very important thing in a guard army that had a huge impact on how they fought.
    What about generic characters? What did they do?


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/15 19:08:54


    Post by: the_scotsman


     Unit1126PLL wrote:
    Rihgu wrote:
    Well, that has got to be the most frustrating and perhaps nonsensical response I've ever had directed at me. *Why* would you even BEGIN to discuss "tactical options" in a context, where, to you, it doesn't even make SENSE?

    Yea, okay, 40k isn't a war. Sure. There's no tactics at all. There's not a single board game, computer game, war game, roleplaying game, sports game, etc. out there that has any tactics.


    That's not true at all.

    Some games actually attempt to reflect the reality they're played in. If a decision is militarily unsound, it will also be game-wise unsound, and if a decision is militarily sensible, it will be game-wise sensible. Things like "don't run out in front of that machine gun" or "use anti-tank weapons on armored vehicles" or "obscure enemy sight with smoke before leaving your trench otherwise you'll get shot up" are some examples of things that are both militarily true and true in game designs.

    Furthermore, when a conflict between what the players believe to be realistic and what the rules say appears, the rules actually say don't follow the rules. Chain of Command's catchphrase is "play the period, not the rules." This means that in the case where something doesn't make sense, you fix the rules, rather than slavishly following them. I can give examples on request.


    Hmm, i wonder whether there would be any kind of design decisions put in place into the rules of Warhammer 40,000 to encourage the kind of unrealistic, rule-of-cool gonzo space fantasy that the universe is intended to be based in?

    Like, I don't know, just spitballing here, giving units engaging in super-unrealistic hand to hand combat some sort of magical defensive force field that applies the second they get into combat with stuff, or say, giving commanders extremely elevated statistics above the general enlisted men to encourage them to participate in heroic duels?

    The only problem I have with what youre kind of getting at here is, you'd like YOUR idea of what the setting SHOULD be to trump what it kind of seems like it always has been.

    Sure, realistically, an imperial guard army should be firing artillery from 50 miles away at the enemy, imperial guard commanders should NEVER EVER leave the safety of their command vehicles...probably, tbh, their fething SPACECRAFTS to heroically charge in and die to enemy melee units, and any time an elite melee unit gets into combat with a squadron of guardsmen, they should all instantly explode in a big cloud of red mist when a battlecannon shell slams into them.

    when people say 'older editions were just better and more realistic' what they really mean is 'they had the kind of unrealism that I prefer'. In older editions, deadly melee units were completely incapable of charging if they did....basically anything before hand. Leapt out of cover to outflank the enemy? Better stand around like idiots for a turn, firing our handful of pistols, it would be unsporting for us to charge in and chop the enemy up with our swords! Heavily armored elite melee units slamming down from the sky directly on top of the enemy's squishy heads? nonono, sir, that unit unfortunately has been completely obliterated!

    But your artillery piece with its high-angled gun being able to fire at enemies 40 yards away from it indirectly? Perfectly fine, no problems here, completely realistic!


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    Racerguy180 wrote:
    What the hell is my jump-pack chaplain supposed to do? Sit there and buff gak...umm no. Oh he'll buff gak, but he's gonna smash some heretics/gaunts/boys whatever.

    My Terminator capt w thunderhammer, oh right he's not supposed to find the biggest thing and charge it. He's supposed to just sit back and buff shooting and do nothing else.

    I could go on for my other armies as well but I think the point is made.


    .....no, they're supposed to do both. What? Do you actually think that people take Terminator armored TH/SS space marine captains and just...have them stand around offering a measley RR1s to hit aura to shooting units?

    And WTF is the complaint about the chaplain, chaplains literally do the EXACT THING THEYVE ALWAYS DONE in previous editions....they used to rr hits in cc for units they were attached to...they now rr hits in cc for units they're near.

    You still fight with SM characters, theyre often the single most points-efficient melee units in any given SM list.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/15 19:35:06


    Post by: Unit1126PLL


     the_scotsman wrote:
     Unit1126PLL wrote:
    Rihgu wrote:
    Well, that has got to be the most frustrating and perhaps nonsensical response I've ever had directed at me. *Why* would you even BEGIN to discuss "tactical options" in a context, where, to you, it doesn't even make SENSE?

    Yea, okay, 40k isn't a war. Sure. There's no tactics at all. There's not a single board game, computer game, war game, roleplaying game, sports game, etc. out there that has any tactics.


    That's not true at all.

    Some games actually attempt to reflect the reality they're played in. If a decision is militarily unsound, it will also be game-wise unsound, and if a decision is militarily sensible, it will be game-wise sensible. Things like "don't run out in front of that machine gun" or "use anti-tank weapons on armored vehicles" or "obscure enemy sight with smoke before leaving your trench otherwise you'll get shot up" are some examples of things that are both militarily true and true in game designs.

    Furthermore, when a conflict between what the players believe to be realistic and what the rules say appears, the rules actually say don't follow the rules. Chain of Command's catchphrase is "play the period, not the rules." This means that in the case where something doesn't make sense, you fix the rules, rather than slavishly following them. I can give examples on request.


    Hmm, i wonder whether there would be any kind of design decisions put in place into the rules of Warhammer 40,000 to encourage the kind of unrealistic, rule-of-cool gonzo space fantasy that the universe is intended to be based in?

    Like, I don't know, just spitballing here, giving units engaging in super-unrealistic hand to hand combat some sort of magical defensive force field that applies the second they get into combat with stuff, or say, giving commanders extremely elevated statistics above the general enlisted men to encourage them to participate in heroic duels?

    The only problem I have with what youre kind of getting at here is, you'd like YOUR idea of what the setting SHOULD be to trump what it kind of seems like it always has been.


    Sure, realistically, an imperial guard army should be firing artillery from 50 miles away at the enemy, imperial guard commanders should NEVER EVER leave the safety of their command vehicles...probably, tbh, their fething SPACECRAFTS to heroically charge in and die to enemy melee units, and any time an elite melee unit gets into combat with a squadron of guardsmen, they should all instantly explode in a big cloud of red mist when a battlecannon shell slams into them.

    when people say 'older editions were just better and more realistic' what they really mean is 'they had the kind of unrealism that I prefer'. In older editions, deadly melee units were completely incapable of charging if they did....basically anything before hand. Leapt out of cover to outflank the enemy? Better stand around like idiots for a turn, firing our handful of pistols, it would be unsporting for us to charge in and chop the enemy up with our swords! Heavily armored elite melee units slamming down from the sky directly on top of the enemy's squishy heads? nonono, sir, that unit unfortunately has been completely obliterated!

    But your artillery piece with its high-angled gun being able to fire at enemies 40 yards away from it indirectly? Perfectly fine, no problems here, completely realistic!


    You know full well when I say "realism" I don't mean "literally our reality" but rather "alignment with the setting's own reality." I'm not complaining that melee is unrealistic in an age with guns, I'm complaining that its incongruous with the lore to have Chimeras unable to push at speed through Orks who can't meaningfully harm them. So that's all the stuff that's struck out safely addressed.

    For the rest of it:
    1) I never said IG Commanders should never leave their command vehicles. I said they should be able to give orders from within them. Nice straw man though, feel free to clean up all the straw on the floor when you are done.
    2) WRT Battlecannon shells into elite units: depends on the unit, obviously. I think it is very "realistic*" (*within the setting, because saying this is necessary) for Terminators, Custodian Guard, etc. to endure battle cannon shells without too much difficulty, given that they have in the lore. Conversely, I think it is also very "realistic*" (*within the setting, because saying this is necessary) for Space Marines to suffer significant casualties from battlecannon (or, in the specific example I am thinking of, Demolisher cannon) shells, because this has also been demonstrated in the lore.
    3) When I say earlier editions are more realistic* (*within the setting, because saying this is necessary), I mean more realistic* (*within the setting, because saying this is necessary) within the setting.
    To address your specific example, deepstriking/infiltrating/outflanking in prior editions disallowed charging precisely to give the enemy time to react, and the jankiness that ensued is entirely a consequence of the IGOUGO mechanics. It's very similar to Zone of Control in a hex-based wargame, essentially forcing a pause in the action to give your opponent time to react to a situation that, in reality* (*within the setting, because saying this is necessary), he'd have some time to react to. BUT! 40k does this reaction system quite badly indeed, since their "reaction" is a turn with their entire army. There are better designed systems for this, and that's why 40k's never been a GREAT system. Saying older editions are better is not the same as older editions are flawless.

    WRT artillery at short range: yeah, I actually had a problem with this too, and was a fan of the Indirect Fire Minimum Ranges (which yes, did exist) in earlier editions. I would be a proponent of making those minimum ranges much larger - and, perhaps, deploying the artillery off the table. But that doesn't sell models so....


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/15 19:36:50


    Post by: ERJAK


     Unit1126PLL wrote:
    Rihgu wrote:
    Well, that has got to be the most frustrating and perhaps nonsensical response I've ever had directed at me. *Why* would you even BEGIN to discuss "tactical options" in a context, where, to you, it doesn't even make SENSE?

    Yea, okay, 40k isn't a war. Sure. There's no tactics at all. There's not a single board game, computer game, war game, roleplaying game, sports game, etc. out there that has any tactics.


    That's not true at all.

    Some games actually attempt to reflect the reality they're played in. If a decision is militarily unsound, it will also be game-wise unsound, and if a decision is militarily sensible, it will be game-wise sensible. Things like "don't run out in front of that machine gun" or "use anti-tank weapons on armored vehicles" or "obscure enemy sight with smoke before leaving your trench otherwise you'll get shot up" are some examples of things that are both militarily true and true in game designs.

    Furthermore, when a conflict between what the players believe to be realistic and what the rules say appears, the rules actually say don't follow the rules. Chain of Command's catchphrase is "play the period, not the rules." This means that in the case where something doesn't make sense, you fix the rules, rather than slavishly following them. I can give examples on request.


    None of this applies to 40k by design. 40k is deliberately nonsensical. The military doctrines described in the fluff are at best extremely basic stuff like "Kill more enemies than enemies kill you" and "If you have overwhelming force, that can save on casualties." and is at worst blatantly suicidal. The reality 40k is played in is that not running in front of a machine gun is cowardice, using swords to kill armored vehicles is what badasses do, and we don't need smoke because we have the glory of the emperor on our side also I literally care more about our smoke grenade supply than all of your lives.

    Stop trying to make 40k a military game. It's a heavy metal album cover with dice.

    Chain of Command's catchphrase is stupid and suggest it's a terrible game. It would be even worse in 40k. "Ope, fluff says that this many tyranids in one place means exterminatus, guess we should call the TO over and let him know we tied!"


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/15 19:41:40


    Post by: Unit1126PLL


    ERJAK wrote:
    None of this applies to 40k by design. 40k is deliberately nonsensical. The military doctrines described in the fluff are at best extremely basic stuff like "Kill more enemies than enemies kill you" and "If you have overwhelming force, that can save on casualties." and is at worst blatantly suicidal. The reality 40k is played in is that not running in front of a machine gun is cowardice, using swords to kill armored vehicles is what badasses do, and we don't need smoke because we have the glory of the emperor on our side also I literally care more about our smoke grenade supply than all of your lives.

    Huh, I guess all that lore about the Imperial Guard having sensible regiments mixed in with the insane ones can just safely be ignored because Erjak said so. Oh, and sensible Mechanicum Adepts, sensible Necrons, sensible Tau? Phooey to that, Erjak says! Now if only GW would accept Erjak's view of the lore and allow it to overwrite their own, he might even be right!

    ERJAK wrote:
    Stop trying to make 40k a military game. It's a heavy metal album cover with dice.

    And yet it bills itself as a WAR game, and used to be much more WAR than game than it is now. If you're happy with it being a heavy metal album cover with dice, be my guest, but don't be surprised when I say "it isn't a wargame". 'Cause by your own admission, it's not.

    ERJAK wrote:
    Chain of Command's catchphrase is stupid and suggest it's a terrible game. It would be even worse in 40k. "Ope, fluff says that this many tyranids in one place means exterminatus, guess we should call the TO over and let him know we tied!"

    I would normally go at great lengths to illustrate the difference between narrative and competitive play in reply to this, but I guess you don't actually care about narrative play and so such a distinction would be unfathomable to you.

    EDIT to add:
    Previous editions of 40k literally had rules for missions against endless Tyranid swarms, so it's particularly funny to me that you chose that as an example of something that couldn't POSSIBLY be played on the tabletop.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/15 20:04:38


    Post by: ERJAK


     Unit1126PLL wrote:
     the_scotsman wrote:
     Unit1126PLL wrote:
    Rihgu wrote:
    Well, that has got to be the most frustrating and perhaps nonsensical response I've ever had directed at me. *Why* would you even BEGIN to discuss "tactical options" in a context, where, to you, it doesn't even make SENSE?

    Yea, okay, 40k isn't a war. Sure. There's no tactics at all. There's not a single board game, computer game, war game, roleplaying game, sports game, etc. out there that has any tactics.


    That's not true at all.

    Some games actually attempt to reflect the reality they're played in. If a decision is militarily unsound, it will also be game-wise unsound, and if a decision is militarily sensible, it will be game-wise sensible. Things like "don't run out in front of that machine gun" or "use anti-tank weapons on armored vehicles" or "obscure enemy sight with smoke before leaving your trench otherwise you'll get shot up" are some examples of things that are both militarily true and true in game designs.

    Furthermore, when a conflict between what the players believe to be realistic and what the rules say appears, the rules actually say don't follow the rules. Chain of Command's catchphrase is "play the period, not the rules." This means that in the case where something doesn't make sense, you fix the rules, rather than slavishly following them. I can give examples on request.


    Hmm, i wonder whether there would be any kind of design decisions put in place into the rules of Warhammer 40,000 to encourage the kind of unrealistic, rule-of-cool gonzo space fantasy that the universe is intended to be based in?

    Like, I don't know, just spitballing here, giving units engaging in super-unrealistic hand to hand combat some sort of magical defensive force field that applies the second they get into combat with stuff, or say, giving commanders extremely elevated statistics above the general enlisted men to encourage them to participate in heroic duels?

    The only problem I have with what youre kind of getting at here is, you'd like YOUR idea of what the setting SHOULD be to trump what it kind of seems like it always has been.


    Sure, realistically, an imperial guard army should be firing artillery from 50 miles away at the enemy, imperial guard commanders should NEVER EVER leave the safety of their command vehicles...probably, tbh, their fething SPACECRAFTS to heroically charge in and die to enemy melee units, and any time an elite melee unit gets into combat with a squadron of guardsmen, they should all instantly explode in a big cloud of red mist when a battlecannon shell slams into them.

    when people say 'older editions were just better and more realistic' what they really mean is 'they had the kind of unrealism that I prefer'. In older editions, deadly melee units were completely incapable of charging if they did....basically anything before hand. Leapt out of cover to outflank the enemy? Better stand around like idiots for a turn, firing our handful of pistols, it would be unsporting for us to charge in and chop the enemy up with our swords! Heavily armored elite melee units slamming down from the sky directly on top of the enemy's squishy heads? nonono, sir, that unit unfortunately has been completely obliterated!

    But your artillery piece with its high-angled gun being able to fire at enemies 40 yards away from it indirectly? Perfectly fine, no problems here, completely realistic!


    You know full well when I say "realism" I don't mean "literally our reality" but rather "alignment with the setting's own reality." I'm not complaining that melee is unrealistic in an age with guns, I'm complaining that its incongruous with the lore to have Chimeras unable to push at speed through Orks who can't meaningfully harm them. So that's all the stuff that's struck out safely addressed.



    Except you don't really seem to get the settings own reality either. Everything that happens in 40k happens because it is dramatic, grimdark, awesome, or ridiculous. Not because it's efficient use of resources and tactically sound based on the writing of Rommel and Sun Tzu.

    Even in fluff battles, different weapons do different things every fight because it doesn't matter exactly what the impact force of shells are or the concussion absorbtion of Ceramite or the heat tolerance of plasma batteries, it's about what's the sickest most raddest most 80- kid-who-never-really-grew-up thing that can happen.

    Now, you could certainly argue that the rules often make sense *within the setting* on those grounds. The fact that guns do the same amount of damage every game is ridiculous and doesn't make sense *within the setting* there should be a random table each unit has to roll on to see if they're the mook or the hero so they can know if their gun will insta-kill everything or just make 1 dramatic shoulder wound. Artillery shells shouldn't be allowed to hit named characters and should only hit generic characters if it's either super dramatic or creates a rapid tonal shift (ala pokedot man's death). The last surviving member of a unit should get a bunch of stat buffs to go full army of one, last man standing. Tanks should explode automatically every time they die and kill 2D6+6 models that cost 8 points or less. All of those would be far more meaningful changes towards being accurate *to the setting* than worrying about minimum artillery distances or how a tank commander's PA system works.

    (You can find examples of every single one of these in 40k as a setting, don't even tell me you can't.)


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/15 20:10:49


    Post by: Unit1126PLL


    You're essentially arguing that it is impossible to turn 40k into a game because the background is too inconsistent to have any meaning beyond "COOL THING HAPPENS NOW."

    And I would argue that perhaps the setting should be more consistent, if they were trying to make anything more coherent than an RPG. Remember, GW controls the setting and the rules, which means it should be EASIER to design rules to the setting (since you don't have to constrain yourself to pesky things like 'what actually happened'). But if they can't develop a consistent setting, then....

    But setting that aside, your argument is essentially: "The lore doesn't and shouldn't matter to the game because it's inconsistent?" I'm asking, because I suspect there are a fair few people who would disagree with that assessment. (There are tons of people on this board who love Crusade to death and who are avowed narrative gamers, moreso even than myself. Paging PenitentJake)

    Furthermore, if that is in fact your stance, then why couldn't 40k be more of a WARgame than a warGAME? Even if you've proven to me that 40k can never adhere to the zany and inconsistent melting-pot of whackiness that is current 40k lore, you've not proven to me why a military-style wargame is undesirable compared to a "heavy metal cover with dice" (for thousands of dollars).


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/15 20:34:13


    Post by: Daedalus81


     Unit1126PLL wrote:
     Daedalus81 wrote:
    Racerguy180 wrote:
    The whole no aura/orders while embarked is fething stupid. More Game BS, less war...
    Do they cease to be able to effectively while embarked??? What, Astartes don't have radios? Every guard vehicle either???


    I imagine you're going to see that change in their new 'dex.


    Just like we did for all the other vehicles in 9th edit-

    Oh wait no, only Guard has radios in their tanks, sorry, carry on.


    *shrug*

    If DE can get special patrols and Admech can get a bunch of crap in the command phase then IG can get something that increases their distinction.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/15 20:41:47


    Post by: catbarf


    Scotsman and Erjak, I think you guys are missing the point. Unit's not asking for the game to play like a WW2 wargame, he wants it to feel like 40K The Game and fit the source material that he's invested in. The examples he's given aren't 'I can't properly represent auftragstaktik on my 40K table', they're basic in-universe stuff that the current rules don't model very well or intuitively.

    A super-realistic historical military game wouldn't have rules for using tanks to run over infantry. But running over Orks with your Chimera at full speed while the officer shouts orders from the hatch (while waving his chainsword) seems perfectly fitting with 40K. So pointing out that 40K is inherently unrealistic heavy metal album cover fantasy is not a very compelling justification for why tank shock doesn't exist.

    The complaint isn't that 9th Ed doesn't feel like a realistic military simulation. It's that it doesn't feel like a good representation of the 40K universe, and is too abstract and 'gamey' for him to get invested in the narrative.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/15 21:44:35


    Post by: Unit1126PLL


    Right!!

    And if the consequences of following the narrative are "do whatever you want, nothing matters!" then that is also unsatisfactory. I can write fanfic on my own time without buying anything. The game helps tell the story by providing a window into the setting through which our armies can be participants.

    Right now, though, when I put down the novel/codex lore section and peer into that window, I wonder if I am even looking at the same thing I was just reading about.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/15 22:08:05


    Post by: ccs


     AnomanderRake wrote:
    ccs wrote:
    ...Like 40k but what you have just isn't working? Buy something different.
    Decide you don't like 40k, but do still like miniature gaming? Switch games & buy models for that....
    Either way, $ spent.

    Or you can simply take the "wait" (and optionally bitch about it) approach. Whatever you have? Eventually the rules will cycle back around to it being good again. This cycle could take anywhere from about 18 months to a decade+ though.... In the meantime there's still plenty of games to be played.



    I'm alternately amused and frustrated by the people who insist 9th is the best, most balanced edition ever in one breath and then turn around and tell me "yeah, but if you want to participate you need to buy different models" when I point out that that isn't my experience, or tell me that there's no point spending a hundred dollars on other minis games because they won't get to play with them while happily blowing a thousand dollars on a new 40k army every 6-8 months to replace the one that just got nerfed into the ground and they'll never play again. The sheer speed with which GW nerfs, squats, or renders irrelevant through power creep models that they still try to sell players using the "buy minis you like, you'll be fine!" mantra is mind-blowing to me, as is the lengths to which players will go to justify it.


    Well that guys not me.
    1) I do not think 9e is the best, most balanced, or even the most fun, edition of the game. And 40k, regardless of the edition, has never been my favorite game. Just one I've generally enjoyed. I do think certain parts of 8th/9th are better than before. Meanwhile other parts of the current game have been simplified & abstracted to the point where a below average pre-schooler seems to be the target audience (and there's people on these boards that will defend & praise those abstractions!).
    At the moment? Despite the parts I dislike? Current 40k is still enough on the + side for me & many of those I play with. Some of the issues are solved by simple house rules - like the idiotic unit coherency rule for larger squads. Or just granting CSM tha 2nd wound. Others are just stuff we don't HAVE to do - shooting each other with our coms antenas, firing left hand sponsons our the right hand side of the tank.... Other stuff? Like the use of Legends units, the VP point bonus for painted armies? GWs opinions on what sizes of boards we should be using? Not even a factor. It's like GW never spoke. Your model has current rules? Use it. Every thing looks painted to us....

    2) My point is that whatever game(s) you choose to play you have to get models. That often means spending $.
    Is that more/different models for 40k? Is that models for some other game? Are you just going to sit out for a while? Can you find players willing to play a previous edition you like better? Hell, maybe you're like me & are just plain stubborn and will continue to play your not-good stuff anyways (my DA scouts will never be retired).

    3) Buying more GW &/or playing other non-GW games. I do both.
    And I promote interest in other games at the local shops (at the base lv it's in my own best interest as I need opponents. ) GWs stuff is nowhere near the only games I play. My preference is some edition of WHFB (though Sigmar will suffice) &/or anything Historical (particularly WWII). But the local winds are blowing more towards 40k atm, so it's good I can also enjoy that game.

    4) Making "buy minis you like, you'll be fine!" work, whatever the game, takes a particular mindset. You either have it or you don't.
    Alot of people require some metric of stats & rules. Without that, no matter how cool the model.... :(
    Some of us though.... We start at "Cool model!" And then as long as the game itself is acceptable enough we'll figure out how to use that cool model effectively no matter it's specific rules. Thing might not ever work for the rest of you though.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/15 23:05:31


    Post by: Daedalus81


    I'll pause for a moment and show my gratitude for people putting forth their pain points. I think it's necessary to have these discussions ( though some approaches leave much to be desired, personally ), because GW tends to listen a bit more these days and these conversations filter up to the web personalities who have more of a voice, too.

    I want nothing more than for 40K to continue to develop. So, thanks.

    If I could ask anything of GW it would be for a more digital and open ruleset with less supplements.

    If I could think of something that might help people with complexity or overpowered units it would be less starting CP and/or limiting strats to once per unit per phase or turn.




    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/15 23:54:08


    Post by: H.B.M.C.


    Racerguy180 wrote:
    The whole no aura/orders while embarked is fething stupid. More Game BS, less war...
    Do they cease to be able to effectively while embarked??? What, Astartes don't have radios? Every guard vehicle either???
    It is well known that the materials used to create Eldar vehicles completely cut their psykers off from the Warp. As a result, Farseers are powerless to look into the future or help their fellow troops whilst inside the hull of a Falcon or Wave Serpent.

    The Ordo Xenos has spent millennia trying to secure some intact examples of the elements that go into Eldar tank hulls in an effort to create special anti-psyker cages, but each time they came close, they were riding inside a transport and couldn't radio their compatriots for support, allowing the Eldar to pick them off.



    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/16 00:09:37


    Post by: Daedalus81


    I don't get the desire for auras or spells out of vehicles. You'd make the aura bigger, it hasn't been done before, and you could stick multiple casters in one vehicle granting them the same targeting measurements as well as granting some models extreme mobility when they shouldn't have it.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/16 00:15:04


    Post by: H.B.M.C.


     Daedalus81 wrote:
    I don't get the desire for auras or spells out of vehicles.
    I don't believe you.

    I don't believe that after reading the posts in this thread that you don't "get" why people would want rules that work outside of transports to work inside of transports.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/16 00:17:59


    Post by: Daedalus81


     H.B.M.C. wrote:
     Daedalus81 wrote:
    I don't get the desire for auras or spells out of vehicles.
    I don't believe you.

    I don't believe that after reading the posts in this thread that you don't "get" why people would want rules that work outside of transports to work inside of transports.


    I understand the desire ( that I don't share ), but I don't understand why it seems people act put out by something that hasn't ever been part of the system and would almost certainly be unbalanced.



    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/16 00:21:54


    Post by: H.B.M.C.


    "It will be unbalanced!"

    So let's not ever try.

    Let's always assume the worst outcome.

    We'll just accept that it not working is a given.






    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/16 00:29:00


    Post by: Daedalus81


     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    "It will be unbalanced!"

    So let's not ever try.

    Let's always assume the worst outcome.

    We'll just accept that it not working is a given.


    I mean...everyone here is upset about layering rules and killing power - why make that easier?


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/16 00:58:44


    Post by: chaos0xomega


    ERJAK wrote:


    Chain of Command's catchphrase is stupid and suggest it's a terrible game.


    Its actually probably one of the most highly regarded wargames out there.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/16 01:03:49


    Post by: AnomanderRake


     Daedalus81 wrote:
    I'll pause for a moment and show my gratitude for people putting forth their pain points. I think it's necessary to have these discussions ( though some approaches leave much to be desired, personally ), because GW tends to listen a bit more these days and these conversations filter up to the web personalities who have more of a voice, too.

    I want nothing more than for 40K to continue to develop. So, thanks.

    If I could ask anything of GW it would be for a more digital and open ruleset with less supplements.

    If I could think of something that might help people with complexity or overpowered units it would be less starting CP and/or limiting strats to once per unit per phase or turn.


    I know it's wildly improbable anyone from GW will actually read this, but in the same vein:

    I know I personally don't like 8th/9th and I spend a lot of time complaining about it, but I do so because I feel forced into a corner by a community and a design team that increasingly doesn't recognize or acknowledge that "wargamers" aren't a monolithic entity that must like 9th or go jump in a lake. I don't want 40k to die, and I don't even want 40k to metamorphasize back into something I personally enjoy, because I know a lot of people like what it currently is and I don't think my fun needs to trample on theirs.

    What I do want is for GW to recognize that there are a lot of people out there who like the way they used to do things. I want them to see things like the massive popularity of the Soulblight and Battle Sisters releases as a sign that there's a lot of untapped demand for modern resculpts or new units in the style of old armies, rather than assuming that they must move further and further away from what we all liked back in the day. I want the people who remember the weird kludgy clunky little side games, who brought back Necromunda and Blood Bowl with the old style of rules and shiny new models, to get a bigger budget and bring back more things, like Mordheim and BFG. I want 30k to get proper support so people stop looking at me like I have two heads when I say "and we could play a game with scatter dice and vehicle facings!"

    I like the Warhammer universe. I like the models, I like the stories, I like the characters. I want to stop feeling like I have to get thrown out because only people who like 9th unconditionally are allowed to participate now.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/16 06:32:22


    Post by: aphyon


     JNAProductions wrote:
    aphyon wrote:
    Second, those increases come at a cost. You don't just magically get better for nothing. And this is another pivot point for 40K. What did characters do back then? Basically nothing but fight or change unit org. Now characters give rerolls or other buffs and fight less often.



    That's not true at all, sure they were a beat stick when they got into combat themselves, but they also gave the entire army special rules-Vulkan he'stan improving all your meltas/flamers and thunder hammers, shrike gave you army wide fleet USR, the khan outflank and so on.

    Does the officer keep the protection of the Chimera, or step out to employ orders?


    Ever heard of a radio? like others have pointed out in previous editions VOX casters used to be a very important thing in a guard army that had a huge impact on how they fought.
    What about generic characters? What did they do?


    Well that didn't take long, i figured this straw man would come up-

    So lets just go through marine HQ characters- all of them have buffs to wounds, initiative, WS or BS or both. some skills also transfer to units joined.

    Chapter master-orbital bombardment/improved leadership
    Captains-improved leadership
    Chaplains-litanies of hate to buff CC units they join
    Librarians-varies depending on powers taken. mine always takes gate as one of his powers making him basically a super rhino for any infantry unit he joins.
    Master of the forge(my favorite)-fire support(conversion beamer/improved BS), repair, bolster defenses.

    The other factions in the game have similar abilities to their named counterparts for less points if not as extra special like farseers etc...


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/16 06:53:33


    Post by: H.B.M.C.


    I never did like the "Everyone gets LD10!" rule that Captains had in that book. Just so happened to coincide with the edition where you needed to take an Ld check to fire at what you wanted. Funny that!

    "And they shall know now inconvenient rules..."





    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/16 07:48:26


    Post by: aphyon


     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    I never did like the "Everyone gets LD10!" rule that Captains had in that book. Just so happened to coincide with the edition where you needed to take an Ld check to fire at what you wanted. Funny that!

    "And they shall know now inconvenient rules..."





    Well that started in 4th. it was limited to the unit joined in 5th unless they had the special rule "rights of battle" for table wide LD 10 and only Cato Sicarius had that in the general marine book in 5th.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/16 09:40:06


    Post by: H.B.M.C.


    Oh, I'm confusing 4th and 5th.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/16 12:05:35


    Post by: the_scotsman


     catbarf wrote:
    Scotsman and Erjak, I think you guys are missing the point. Unit's not asking for the game to play like a WW2 wargame, he wants it to feel like 40K The Game and fit the source material that he's invested in. The examples he's given aren't 'I can't properly represent auftragstaktik on my 40K table', they're basic in-universe stuff that the current rules don't model very well or intuitively.

    A super-realistic historical military game wouldn't have rules for using tanks to run over infantry. But running over Orks with your Chimera at full speed while the officer shouts orders from the hatch (while waving his chainsword) seems perfectly fitting with 40K. So pointing out that 40K is inherently unrealistic heavy metal album cover fantasy is not a very compelling justification for why tank shock doesn't exist.

    The complaint isn't that 9th Ed doesn't feel like a realistic military simulation. It's that it doesn't feel like a good representation of the 40K universe, and is too abstract and 'gamey' for him to get invested in the narrative.


    Sure - in this edition, tanks (except for specific, melee-capable tanks like deffrollas) cannot roll through infantry units. This is a thing that can cause you to feel like there is little realism.

    My overall point is just. each edition has things like that. You are not choosing 'the more realistic edition' you are choosing 'the edition that has less of the things that you dont like and more of the things that you do like.'

    Personally, tank shock is all well and good, but 5e has vastly more things that frustrate me when trying to 'picture the narative' than 8th/9th. Infantry essentially cowered in transports 99% of the time in 5th - my lovingly painted ork infantry would sit on the side of the board every game, like a benched basketball player waiting for coach to put him in, popping out of their trukk for a turn to deliver a melee insta-kill to the rear of some vehicle before evaporating to the very first weapon pointed their way. 4th/5th works fantastic for someone like Unit who just wants to say "OK, YOU have to play a minaitures game, I'M going to be over here playing with my three action figures and if you can kill any of them its not fair" but the reason 8th got me back into the game was basically because I finally got to put infantry on the board and have them have some kind of reasonable odds of staying there for more than 5 seconds. Now that 9th is 'everything infantry and vehicles alike just explodes instantly' that enjoyment is gone again.

    The amount of things that cause melee units in 5e to stand around like idiots, waiting to be scythed down by enemy fire, vehicles to be able to essentially ignore everything that exists and just roll around the table unopposed, the old AP/instant death system that meant that a unit would be almost invincible to a particular weapon but up the strength and AP by just one and that weapon suddenly instantly wipes them out with no effort at all... these all destroy my realism and sense of enjoyment far more than the general framework of 8th/9th. The problems I have are with the details of 8th/9th and just, where the values of the numbers are at. If offense stayed exactly the same, and every single model just had double the wound-count, I'd probably enjoy 9th edition 100% more. it'd feel more like a game with choices and back-and-forth rather than a situation where you just figure out a turn 1/turn 2 tempo gameplan and execute that gameplan with no variation every game.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/16 12:41:05


    Post by: JNAProductions


    That wasn’t a straw man, that was a question.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/16 12:53:19


    Post by: aphyon


     the_scotsman wrote:
     catbarf wrote:
    Scotsman and Erjak, I think you guys are missing the point. Unit's not asking for the game to play like a WW2 wargame, he wants it to feel like 40K The Game and fit the source material that he's invested in. The examples he's given aren't 'I can't properly represent auftragstaktik on my 40K table', they're basic in-universe stuff that the current rules don't model very well or intuitively.

    A super-realistic historical military game wouldn't have rules for using tanks to run over infantry. But running over Orks with your Chimera at full speed while the officer shouts orders from the hatch (while waving his chainsword) seems perfectly fitting with 40K. So pointing out that 40K is inherently unrealistic heavy metal album cover fantasy is not a very compelling justification for why tank shock doesn't exist.

    The complaint isn't that 9th Ed doesn't feel like a realistic military simulation. It's that it doesn't feel like a good representation of the 40K universe, and is too abstract and 'gamey' for him to get invested in the narrative.


    Sure - in this edition, tanks (except for specific, melee-capable tanks like deffrollas) cannot roll through infantry units. This is a thing that can cause you to feel like there is little realism.

    My overall point is just. each edition has things like that. You are not choosing 'the more realistic edition' you are choosing 'the edition that has less of the things that you dont like and more of the things that you do like.'

    Personally, tank shock is all well and good, but 5e has vastly more things that frustrate me when trying to 'picture the narative' than 8th/9th. Infantry essentially cowered in transports 99% of the time in 5th - my lovingly painted ork infantry would sit on the side of the board every game, like a benched basketball player waiting for coach to put him in, popping out of their trukk for a turn to deliver a melee insta-kill to the rear of some vehicle before evaporating to the very first weapon pointed their way. 4th/5th works fantastic for someone like Unit who just wants to say "OK, YOU have to play a minaitures game, I'M going to be over here playing with my three action figures and if you can kill any of them its not fair" but the reason 8th got me back into the game was basically because I finally got to put infantry on the board and have them have some kind of reasonable odds of staying there for more than 5 seconds. Now that 9th is 'everything infantry and vehicles alike just explodes instantly' that enjoyment is gone again.

    The amount of things that cause melee units in 5e to stand around like idiots, waiting to be scythed down by enemy fire, vehicles to be able to essentially ignore everything that exists and just roll around the table unopposed, the old AP/instant death system that meant that a unit would be almost invincible to a particular weapon but up the strength and AP by just one and that weapon suddenly instantly wipes them out with no effort at all... these all destroy my realism and sense of enjoyment far more than the general framework of 8th/9th. The problems I have are with the details of 8th/9th and just, where the values of the numbers are at. If offense stayed exactly the same, and every single model just had double the wound-count, I'd probably enjoy 9th edition 100% more. it'd feel more like a game with choices and back-and-forth rather than a situation where you just figure out a turn 1/turn 2 tempo gameplan and execute that gameplan with no variation every game.


    Wow that is just completely not true at all. i still play LOTS of 5th edition regularly. sometimes there are vehicles, sometimes there are hordes but it isn't as stark as you paint it to be.

    This was from a 1k point game last weekend in fact where the only "vehicles" on the table were ork ZZAP guns.

    Spoiler:


    Not a trukk to cower behind in sight, and the orks won that game


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/16 13:11:20


    Post by: Rihgu


    Ah yes, the famous version of 5th edition which had Admech and frequently used rules from 3rd edition, was it? to bring Warhound Titans into the game.

    That's my favorite version of 5th edition...

    Your playgroup definitely has a different attitude towards things than the playgroup Scotsman had during 5th edition. For example, they use homebrew and house rules. That may have something to do with the disconnect between the_scotsman's 5th edition experience and yours.
    But I also remember, in a much wider sense, that vehicle based lists were king besides 15 GK paladins and nob biker lists. So I'm not so sure your experience is the common one...


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/16 13:14:45


    Post by: Unit1126PLL


    I'm advocating for 4th, anyways, not 5th, where I can only take 1 Baneblade and only at more than 2k points and transports are were NOTORIOUS for being deathtraps (yay "entangled" and Vehicle Annihilated!).

    Where terrain was abstract and melee units were pretty scary (consolidate into combat!) though vehicles WERE hit on the facing you were actually in, hmm... obviously I am trying to be OP.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/16 13:21:02


    Post by: kodos


    from my experience (and 5th was the Edition were I played the most tournaments) vehicle based melee lists were a thing, as well as nob bikes, but never seen the 15 GK list or the famous leaf blower (which was more a US thing anyway)

    Tyranid Gaunt Spam or infiltrating Symbiont Spam was more common here than Nob Biker

    Melee list dominated the meta to a point because of the objective focused scenarios used here (sitting back and stay out of melee range to shoot everything would not win you the game)


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/16 14:05:06


    Post by: PenitentJake


     AnomanderRake wrote:


    I know I personally don't like 8th/9th and I spend a lot of time complaining about it, but I do so because I feel forced into a corner by a community and a design team that increasingly doesn't recognize or acknowledge that "wargamers" aren't a monolithic entity that must like 9th or go jump in a lake. I don't want 40k to die, and I don't even want 40k to metamorphasize back into something I personally enjoy, because I know a lot of people like what it currently is and I don't think my fun needs to trample on theirs.


    This usually does come across in your posts. Obviously, we disagree fairly often, but you're pretty reasonable in your posts- I've exalted more than one. So please, don't see this response as an antagonistic take-down. But I think 8th and 9th do demonstrate that GW recognizes wargamers aren't a monolithic entity- I think that's why these editions have 3 ways to play and native support for four sizes of game. Every other edition was far more monolithic than these have been.

    It is a shame from my point of view that you have a difficult time finding a more open-minded group of players- I similarly feel for Karol and other posters who talk about the difficulty of finding anyone who wants to play anything but 2k Matched. I also recognize that some of the things you like least about this edition may be common to all three modes of play. And if I recall correctly, I know some of your favourite armies have received rougher treatment.

    But I think there is a lot of evidence to support the idea that GW is trying to be responsive to different player preferences- more so than in any other editions.

     AnomanderRake wrote:

    What I do want is for GW to recognize that there are a lot of people out there who like the way they used to do things. I want them to see things like the massive popularity of the Soulblight and Battle Sisters releases as a sign that there's a lot of untapped demand for modern resculpts or new units in the style of old armies, rather than assuming that they must move further and further away from what we all liked back in the day. I want the people who remember the weird kludgy clunky little side games, who brought back Necromunda and Blood Bowl with the old style of rules and shiny new models, to get a bigger budget and bring back more things, like Mordheim and BFG. I want 30k to get proper support so people stop looking at me like I have two heads when I say "and we could play a game with scatter dice and vehicle facings!"


    Again, this is happening. I think it's why they gave Sisters a second wave and broke the last dex of the edition curse. It's why there are now as many or more Necromunda SKUs as there have ever been. It is a bummer to me that 40k doesn't have a current Warhammer Quest game- interactions between BSF and 40k were absolutely critical in establishing the new game for me- without the weird, wacky Rogue Traders, the Ambull and the Zoat, I wouldn't have liked 8th anywhere near as much as I did.

    I'd like to see BFG return as well, and I think there might be space for GW to combine some Aeronautica and Titanicus to create a new Epic.

    As for resculpts, more and faster would be cool, but this too is happening. Ork Kommandos and Copters, a few resculpts for CWE/ DE with hopefully more on the way.

    And the 30k box that's coming is pretty much confirmed? It's still going to be a while- some people thought we might get it Q4, but I think people are starting to think next year is more likely? But it's coming, and we know it is keeping scatter dice at least.

     AnomanderRake wrote:

    I like the Warhammer universe. I like the models, I like the stories, I like the characters. I want to stop feeling like I have to get thrown out because only people who like 9th unconditionally are allowed to participate now.


    I hope that my posts haven't made you feel this way. I love 9th- LOVE it. But I applaud the Herohammer folks, I applaud houserulers (even though I like 9th, I've added a few houserules of my own for the sake of campaign dynamics) and one page rule folks. I don't think these kind of fan-based alternatives were as available or widely discussed during previous editions, so I'm not sure I agree that there's more "Love the current ed or shut up" than usual. Of course, that might be dependent on your local meta more than Dakka.

    I will say that as a guy who likes 9th, there have been times when I've had to take Dakka vacations, because the hate some people have for the game is hard to read. I think I get caught up in the idea that since my thoughts on the game are positive, they aren't as hard to get through... But I suppose game positive responses can be just as difficult for folks whose experiences with the game are negative as the negative comments are for me.

    My posts probably make it sound sometimes like I don't believe there's room for improvement. There is room for improvement, of course. I just read a fair number of recommendations that some people think would improve the game, and often think those specific recommendations would ruin something that I happen to like. There's a lot of folks that really want to do away with subfaction distinctions for the sake of balance and simplicity, and subfaction distinction for armies other than marines is something I've been waiting for since I was a teenager. My favourite part of the Sisters revival is that the subfactions actually play differently. I feel like GW finally loves me as much as they've loved space marine players for three decades and I'm genuinely shocked by the number of people who want to jump in a time machine and undo that for the sake of balance, or flow, or simplicity, or anti-bloat or whatever.

    I don't think I've seen YOU make those suggestions- you seem to like fringe content as much as I do.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/16 17:10:00


    Post by: Da Boss


    I'd love it if GW would put all their old codices and rulebooks and army books up for sale as high quality PDFs. I'd buy loads of stuff if they did. WOTC does that with all previous editions of D&D and they've got plenty of sales from me for it.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/16 18:18:24


    Post by: aphyon


    Rihgu wrote:
    Ah yes, the famous version of 5th edition which had Admech and frequently used rules from 3rd edition, was it? to bring Warhound Titans into the game.

    That's my favorite version of 5th edition...

    Your playgroup definitely has a different attitude towards things than the playgroup Scotsman had during 5th edition. For example, they use homebrew and house rules. That may have something to do with the disconnect between the_scotsman's 5th edition experience and yours.
    But I also remember, in a much wider sense, that vehicle based lists were king besides 15 GK paladins and nob biker lists. So I'm not so sure your experience is the common one...


    Yeah because compatible rules for normal games that use pre-apocalypse designs totally change 5th edition.

    You also seem to forget i am VERY active in the wargaming hobby and i actually played during 5th without house rules getting in 600+ games(that's about 3 a weekend on average for those counting) it was no different then even if some of the core rules changes from 4th to 5th were less to my liking(while others were better).

    Even then the reality is the same, i face hordes, i faced vehicle lists (one of my regular opponent had a FW corsair list) monster bug lists, bike lists, drop pod lists, chapter approved lists (like the all kroot army) i even played in a couple grand tournaments(and the reason why i swore off of them as they bring out the worst in people from the perspective of us more casual minded gamers) and my experience was still the same.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/16 18:35:05


    Post by: The_Real_Chris


     the_scotsman wrote:
    Now that 9th is 'everything infantry and vehicles alike just explodes instantly' that enjoyment is gone again


    But if they didn't the game would take forever. I think of my unit as cards in a CCG so have little attachment and pack them off on suicidal tasks.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/16 18:41:54


    Post by: Rihgu


    aphyon wrote:
    Rihgu wrote:
    Ah yes, the famous version of 5th edition which had Admech and frequently used rules from 3rd edition, was it? to bring Warhound Titans into the game.

    That's my favorite version of 5th edition...

    Your playgroup definitely has a different attitude towards things than the playgroup Scotsman had during 5th edition. For example, they use homebrew and house rules. That may have something to do with the disconnect between the_scotsman's 5th edition experience and yours.
    But I also remember, in a much wider sense, that vehicle based lists were king besides 15 GK paladins and nob biker lists. So I'm not so sure your experience is the common one...


    Yeah because compatible rules for normal games that use pre-apocalypse designs totally change 5th edition.

    You also seem to forget i am VERY active in the wargaming hobby and i actually played during 5th without house rules getting in 600+ games(that's about 3 a weekend on average for those counting) it was no different then even if some of the core rules changes from 4th to 5th were less to my liking(while others were better).

    Even then the reality is the same, i face hordes, i faced vehicle lists (one of my regular opponent had a FW corsair list) monster bug lists, bike lists, drop pod lists, chapter approved lists (like the all kroot army) i even played in a couple grand tournaments(and the reason why i swore off of them as they bring out the worst in people from the perspective of us more casual minded gamers) and my experience was still the same.


    But.. if that's YOUR experience... and the_scotsman had a totally different experience... how are we going to reconcile this? Surely there must be some way for the both of you to have totally opposite experiences without either of you being totally lying...

    Things that you can call out as being totally not true at all: "Terminators have a 5+ armor save", "Ork shoota boyz are 100 points per model", "In 5th edition, vehicles didn't have armor values and used Toughness just like infantry"
    Things that you can not call out as being totally not true at all: Other players' actual lived experiences.

    5th edition to me and many others was rife with parking lots and leafblowers. 5th edition to you and I guess kodos had more variety (and probably others). Great. Both of these things can be true and it's based on a huge number of factors.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/16 20:27:01


    Post by: jeff white


    Those factors seem to be the people with whom one plays. After second, I was tutored on late 3rd or it might have been early 4th by a guy that play tested for that edition…it was 2001 iirc. he had rhinos and csm … I had my guardians and so on… I played with him exactly that one time. Never again. With that philosophy, I have had almost no negative experiences in this hobby due to gamey meta chasing net list optimisers… I avoid those sorts of people, in every area of life.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/17 06:28:04


    Post by: aphyon


    Rihgu wrote:
    aphyon wrote:
    Rihgu wrote:
    Ah yes, the famous version of 5th edition which had Admech and frequently used rules from 3rd edition, was it? to bring Warhound Titans into the game.

    That's my favorite version of 5th edition...

    Your playgroup definitely has a different attitude towards things than the playgroup Scotsman had during 5th edition. For example, they use homebrew and house rules. That may have something to do with the disconnect between the_scotsman's 5th edition experience and yours.
    But I also remember, in a much wider sense, that vehicle based lists were king besides 15 GK paladins and nob biker lists. So I'm not so sure your experience is the common one...


    Yeah because compatible rules for normal games that use pre-apocalypse designs totally change 5th edition.

    You also seem to forget i am VERY active in the wargaming hobby and i actually played during 5th without house rules getting in 600+ games(that's about 3 a weekend on average for those counting) it was no different then even if some of the core rules changes from 4th to 5th were less to my liking(while others were better).

    Even then the reality is the same, i face hordes, i faced vehicle lists (one of my regular opponent had a FW corsair list) monster bug lists, bike lists, drop pod lists, chapter approved lists (like the all kroot army) i even played in a couple grand tournaments(and the reason why i swore off of them as they bring out the worst in people from the perspective of us more casual minded gamers) and my experience was still the same.


    But.. if that's YOUR experience... and the_scotsman had a totally different experience... how are we going to reconcile this? Surely there must be some way for the both of you to have totally opposite experiences without either of you being totally lying...

    Things that you can call out as being totally not true at all: "Terminators have a 5+ armor save", "Ork shoota boyz are 100 points per model", "In 5th edition, vehicles didn't have armor values and used Toughness just like infantry"
    Things that you can not call out as being totally not true at all: Other players' actual lived experiences.

    5th edition to me and many others was rife with parking lots and leafblowers. 5th edition to you and I guess kodos had more variety (and probably others). Great. Both of these things can be true and it's based on a huge number of factors.


    Perhaps it is because my FLGS is near 2 military bases so we have lots of turn over. and we always encouraged new players to build well rounded "take all comers" lists in 5th not net listing or list tailoring. Sure you did see some of that-the lash prince list, the mechanized list etc... but it wasn't to common or game breaking.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/17 06:55:28


    Post by: Blackie


    If people play well rounded "take all comers" lists, which in my opinion is the best way to play 40k properly, then also 9th edition is an amazing experience. It's all about the players' mindset.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/17 07:38:59


    Post by: AnomanderRake


     Blackie wrote:
    If people play well rounded "take all comers" lists, which in my opinion is the best way to play 40k properly, then also 9th edition is an amazing experience. It's all about the players' mindset.


    Which is largely my problem with current 40k. The people who are having fun with it because they happen to hang with communities of people who all agree with them on exactly what's "the right mindset" then spend a lot of time telling me the game is objectively superior and the fact that I don't happen to have their magical idyllic communities where everyone agrees with each other means they get to point and sneer at how wrong my mindset is.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/17 07:39:00


    Post by: aphyon



    If people play well rounded "take all comers" lists, which in my opinion is the best way to play 40k properly, then also 9th edition is an amazing experience.


    In my experience 9th actually punishes you for doing that.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/17 08:04:15


    Post by: Blackie


    aphyon wrote:

    If people play well rounded "take all comers" lists, which in my opinion is the best way to play 40k properly, then also 9th edition is an amazing experience.


    In my experience 9th actually punishes you for doing that.


    Fair enough, my experience is the opposite. I loved 5th edition but when my orks weren't playing the "Kan Wall" or the "3 Battlewagons + nob bikers" lists they died horribly against anyone. Same with SW as litterally everyone played las+plas razorbacks and long fangs spam. Lists with a bit of everything work better now than then, although in tournaments skew lists (see buggy spam) are still common.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     AnomanderRake wrote:
     Blackie wrote:
    If people play well rounded "take all comers" lists, which in my opinion is the best way to play 40k properly, then also 9th edition is an amazing experience. It's all about the players' mindset.


    Which is largely my problem with current 40k. The people who are having fun with it because they happen to hang with communities of people who all agree with them on exactly what's "the right mindset" then spend a lot of time telling me the game is objectively superior and the fact that I don't happen to have their magical idyllic communities where everyone agrees with each other means they get to point and sneer at how wrong my mindset is.


    Yeah, the playing group is the major factor for a game's success.


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/17 08:19:03


    Post by: kodos


    "9th is a good game, if you have the right gaming group"

    is similar to

    "What is your opinion of 9th? Changes I would like to see in 10th....."


    it both tells you that 9th is not in a very good spot right now and it is only the Community that keeps it going, not the game/rules


    Peak 40K? @ 2021/09/17 08:23:04


    Post by: a_typical_hero


     Blackie wrote:
     AnomanderRake wrote:
    Which is largely my problem with current 40k. The people who are having fun with it because they happen to hang with communities of people who all agree with them on exactly what's "the right mindset" then spend a lot of time telling me the game is objectively superior and the fact that I don't happen to have their magical idyllic communities where everyone agrees with each other means they get to point and sneer at how wrong my mindset is.
    Yeah, the playing group is the major factor for a game's success.

    Having a group with a similar mindset is not a thing that is mandatory to have fun just for current 40k. Former editions getting less or no "balance patches" at all and having a wider gap between playable and trash units made it even more important.

    We are still not there were you can take an all Scouts meme list and can expect to reasonable compare against a Dhrukari tournament list. I don't think the game will ever be like that, to be honest. I do think you have better chances now, though, than let's say in 4th edition against an Eldar tourny list with your 10th company.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     kodos wrote:
    "9th is a good game, if you have the right gaming group"

    is similar to

    "What is your opinion of 9th? Changes I would like to see in 10th....."


    it both tells you that 9th is not in a very good spot right now and it is only the Community that keeps it going, not the game/rules

    Disagree. The perfect game with the wrong group still sucks donkey. And until we have the perfect game, you will always find something to improve for the next iteration.