Switch Theme:

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

Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/15 20:46:12


Post by: Peakab00


Got back into playing 40k After 15 years away, I thought Id start with ORKS - Remembering them being a fairly easy race to pick-up, problem being they is only one real tactic with them and that's "rush" everything forward and close, and see how it pans out, So new Codex brought - absolute mind scramble! The rule changes and stratagems I cannot recall 40k being this complex several releases ago. absolute mountain of information to process almost takes the fun out of it?

How is anyone realistically supposed to know all the potential stats, relics, customs, special rules involved in an army? I'm finding this is almost taken the just play/have fun element out of game, any finding all the rules involved almost too much to learn ? Also creating an army list seems way more complex than I can previously remember. How can I simplify all this ?


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/15 21:05:52


Post by: Mezmorki


Welcome to the horror!

They'll tell you that 9th edition is "simpler" because: "look at how much shorter the core rules are!"

Then you crack open the codex and your mind explodes.

I stopped playing for a while (5th edition) and tried to get into 8th and 9th and few times and I just can't. I (perhaps like you?) literally get a headache trying to sort through the new codexs and get my head around all the bloat that's in there (stratagems, faction traits, relics, etc.). It's too much and all of it detracts from what made the game fun before.

If you have a willing group, do what many of us are doing and just play old hammer. Go back to 4th or 5th edition or use an older custom rule set (see link in my signature).


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/15 21:07:08


Post by: Gnarlly


 Peakab00 wrote:
How is anyone realistically supposed to know all the potential stats, relics, customs, special rules involved in an army? I'm finding this is almost taken the just play/have fun element out of game, any finding all the rules involved almost too much to learn ? Also creating an army list seems way more complex than I can previously remember. How can I simplify all this ?


Go back to an earlier edition that you prefer; that's what I have done. Current 40k codex rules (not the rulebook's core rules) are a mess of needlessly complex layering of rules upon rules. See the numerous other threads that expand on this topic . . .


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/15 21:08:23


Post by: mrFickle


Agree with you totally gone through the same thing over a year ago. It’s hard for a someone who wants to be a casual player but just as hard to become a competitive player.

I would say watch some videos on you tube. There are loads of people breaking down the codexes and play styles etc and I think that helps pick it up.

You can try using the 40K app, the army builder helps organise but doesn’t really explain why you have to make certain choices.

Don’t get me started on command points.

However the current range of models for most armies are mostly superb so if you’re really into painting then now is a good time to be in the hobby


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/15 21:12:35


Post by: Togusa


Uh. The game is more simple than it ever has been. What you will find is that only about 4-5 stratagems are worth using, usually with 1-3 being abuseable AF. I haven't seen the new Ork codex just yet, but I imagine it's not really all that much different from its 8th Ed. Counterpart.

I think that you're just overwhelmed because you've been gone so long.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/15 21:17:33


Post by: Grimtuff


 Mezmorki wrote:
Welcome to the horror!

They'll tell you that 9th edition is "simpler" because: "look at how much shorter the core rules are!"

Then you crack open the codex and your mind explodes.


Of course, they'll be along in a minute and imply how mentally deficient we are or something for finding modern 40k too bloated.

Togusa wrote:
Uh. The game is more simple than it ever has been. What you will find is that only about 4-5 stratagems are worth using, usually with 1-3 being abuseable AF. I haven't seen the new Ork codex just yet, but I imagine it's not really all that much different from its 8th Ed. Counterpart.

I think that you're just overwhelmed because you've been gone so long.


Oh look, it only took five posts...


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/15 21:30:59


Post by: drbored


Togusa wrote:
Uh. The game is more simple than it ever has been. What you will find is that only about 4-5 stratagems are worth using, usually with 1-3 being abuseable AF. I haven't seen the new Ork codex just yet, but I imagine it's not really all that much different from its 8th Ed. Counterpart.

I think that you're just overwhelmed because you've been gone so long.


Nope. I played pretty heavily into 8th, then 9th came around and once the codexes started rolling out, I got lost fast. In order to 'find' the 4-5 stratagems that are worth using, you have to play games and figure it out, or be willing to blindly trust the competitive players on the internet, so your first 5-10 games are going to be a slog of memorizing rules, figuring out what works and what doesn't.

Also, the new Ork Codex has some drastic changes in terms of points, stats, stratagems, and useability from the old one, not to mention all the new units that people are figuring out. If you're coming into the 9th edition codex from 8th, 7th, 6th, or any other time, there's a TON that's changed.

Fact of the matter is that the longer 9th goes on and the more codexes that come out, the more the community is going to feel this way. They get lured in by awesome new models only to find a wall of text that they have to slog through in order to play with them.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/15 21:34:33


Post by: Daedalus81


Feels like a regular Dakka poster made an alt to complain about 9th edition. As if we didn't have enough threads on it.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/15 21:35:04


Post by: AnomanderRake


The edition wars are pretty bad right now; asking questions about "how is anyone supposed to parse 9th?" on Dakka is likely to lead to a long argument between the "9th is best edition!" crowd and "9th is worst edition!" crowd. Generally this comes in the form of making wildly different value judgements on the same facts (ex. the pace of releases is good because people get new stuff faster, or the pace of releases is bad because it makes it hard to keep up with what's going on), which means that the arguments go on and on and round in circles and never go anywhere.

I've found that except for a couple of outliers (hi PenitentJake!) the people who enjoy 9th the most are competitive players that don't mind buying models just to win/not playing models they like because they're bad, enjoy keeping up with the tournament meta, and like the move to a more deterministic game. If you're going to try and play 40k right now I'd strongly suggest doing your research ahead of time; before buying anything or making any list-building decisions watch some battle reports, read some reviews (not the GW ones where they're gushing over everything independent of whether it's crap), and look at what lists other people are building. Internal balance is worse than it's ever been, and I find the people who like 9th are very happy to steamroll you, then tell you that the game is perfect and it's your fault for buying the wrong minis.

If you just want to start playing a minis game I'd strongly suggest looking into things that aren't 40k. More so than earlier editions it's hard to drop in/drop out or otherwise play casually; you're expected to keep up with tournament play and have multiple armies so you can swap when half your stuff gets squatted to a degree that wasn't so mainstream ten or fifteen years ago.

Disclaimer: This is largely informed by my community and by the people I talk to online; it's completely possible that you could have the mythical local community of actual casual people that don't really care about tournament play and you can play casually, but in my experience the fanbase has largely pivoted to a more competitive mindset.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Feels like a regular Dakka poster made an alt to complain about 9th edition. As if we didn't have enough threads on it.


Wait, there are so few people who don't like 9th that they're all already longtime Dakka people? I must have missed this news.

(This is the other part of the edition wars problem, the "if you don't like 9th there's something wrong with you!"/"if you like 9th there's something wrong with you!" position.)


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/15 21:39:50


Post by: Tawnis


Having played since 3rd edition, what I've found is that the pre-game stuff for 9th is far more complex, but that once you understand it and get models in the table, it tends to be simpler than many of the previous editions (I remember never being able to get 7th straight, felt like every rule had at least half a dozen exceptions, and there were FAR more base rules than there are now. Though I did play 7th the least because of life circumstances, so that could be it too.)

I just introduced a friend of mine to the game recently and he had much the same reaction as you, his literal words were "How the hell do you remember all this nonsense!" Rather than overwhelm him with everything at once, we played several games over about a month and a half, slowly adding more rules as we went.

We started out simple, just using the datasheets, we put models on the table and tried to kill each other. Next game, we added the faction specific rules, next game objectives, next game universal stratagems, next secondary objectives, next relics and other misc options, and lastly all stratagems. By doing it a bit at a time, he got acclimatized really well and while he still forgets some things here and there, he's got it mostly down now and is having a great time with the game.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/15 21:46:43


Post by: Daedalus81


 AnomanderRake wrote:

Wait, there are so few people who don't like 9th that they're all already longtime Dakka people? I must have missed this news.

(This is the other part of the edition wars problem, the "if you don't like 9th there's something wrong with you!"/"if you like 9th there's something wrong with you!" position.)


No, I mean this is worded so precisely like arguments already on the forum it's like someone created a new account to throw read meat to the base and increase the perception of malcontent.

Someone who's actually interested in getting into the game - especially an older player with experience, because the old rulebooks were an absolute minefield - doesn't usually approach it this way.

Of course, I'm being a grumpy turd so take that as you will.





Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/15 21:53:43


Post by: BrianDavion


nternal balance is worse than it's ever been, and I find the people who like 9th are very happy to steamroll you, then tell you that the game is perfect and it's your fault for buying the wrong minis.


9th edition's had better internal balance then the last 3 or 4 editions on average. you're proably thinking of 8th edition which many armies still have a codex for


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/15 21:55:40


Post by: Lammia


 Peakab00 wrote:
Got back into playing 40k After 15 years away, I thought Id start with ORKS - Remembering them being a fairly easy race to pick-up, problem being they is only one real tactic with them and that's "rush" everything forward and close, and see how it pans out, So new Codex brought - absolute mind scramble! The rule changes and stratagems I cannot recall 40k being this complex several releases ago. absolute mountain of information to process almost takes the fun out of it?

How is anyone realistically supposed to know all the potential stats, relics, customs, special rules involved in an army? I'm finding this is almost taken the just play/have fun element out of game, any finding all the rules involved almost too much to learn ? Also creating an army list seems way more complex than I can previously remember. How can I simplify all this ?
List building looks harder than it is in pratice.

Codex rules can be broken down into 2 groups. Unit and army rules. Army rules just have to be learnt, but they can be learnt in steps - if someone is willing to help - and have the advantage of a always needing to be considered. Unit rules are learnt on a usage basis, especially part of a post game debrief.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/15 21:58:09


Post by: Daedalus81


BrianDavion wrote:
nternal balance is worse than it's ever been, and I find the people who like 9th are very happy to steamroll you, then tell you that the game is perfect and it's your fault for buying the wrong minis.


9th edition's had better internal balance then the last 3 or 4 editions on average. you're proably thinking of 8th edition which many armies still have a codex for


He owns a lot of pariah armies so his perspective comes from that place. It isn't correct or incorrect necessarily.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/15 21:58:24


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Wow this is a surprisingly applicable post to a lot of currently ongoing discussions. Huh.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/15 21:59:34


Post by: Daedalus81


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Wow this is a surprisingly applicable post to a lot of currently ongoing discussions. Huh.


Yes. How weird. And convenient.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/15 21:59:46


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Daedalus81 wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
nternal balance is worse than it's ever been, and I find the people who like 9th are very happy to steamroll you, then tell you that the game is perfect and it's your fault for buying the wrong minis.


9th edition's had better internal balance then the last 3 or 4 editions on average. you're proably thinking of 8th edition which many armies still have a codex for


He owns a lot of pariah armies so his perspective comes from that place. It isn't correct or incorrect necessarily.


Such "pariah armies" include CSM, which on one hand, sure, "GW hates CSM!" jokes, but on the other hand if CSM get to be in the "no, we can't be bothered to make playable rules for several editions at a time" doghouse nobody is immune.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/15 22:00:42


Post by: Tawnis


 AnomanderRake wrote:
The edition wars are pretty bad right now; asking questions about "how is anyone supposed to parse 9th?" on Dakka is likely to lead to a long argument between the "9th is best edition!" crowd and "9th is worst edition!" crowd. Generally this comes in the form of making wildly different value judgements on the same facts (ex. the pace of releases is good because people get new stuff faster, or the pace of releases is bad because it makes it hard to keep up with what's going on), which means that the arguments go on and on and round in circles and never go anywhere.

I've found that except for a couple of outliers (hi PenitentJake!) the people who enjoy 9th the most are competitive players that don't mind buying models just to win/not playing models they like because they're bad, enjoy keeping up with the tournament meta, and like the move to a more deterministic game. If you're going to try and play 40k right now I'd strongly suggest doing your research ahead of time; before buying anything or making any list-building decisions watch some battle reports, read some reviews (not the GW ones where they're gushing over everything independent of whether it's crap), and look at what lists other people are building. Internal balance is worse than it's ever been, and I find the people who like 9th are very happy to steamroll you, then tell you that the game is perfect and it's your fault for buying the wrong minis.

If you just want to start playing a minis game I'd strongly suggest looking into things that aren't 40k. More so than earlier editions it's hard to drop in/drop out or otherwise play casually; you're expected to keep up with tournament play and have multiple armies so you can swap when half your stuff gets squatted to a degree that wasn't so mainstream ten or fifteen years ago.

Disclaimer: This is largely informed by my community and by the people I talk to online; it's completely possible that you could have the mythical local community of actual casual people that don't really care about tournament play and you can play casually, but in my experience the fanbase has largely pivoted to a more competitive mindset.



I just wanted to quickly reply to this beyond just exalting, because (especially with the little disclaimer) I think you hit the nail on the head.

Aside from the Crusade system which, while needed a bit more to it, I think is great for causal; it does really feel like (especially from players online) that this is the "competitive tournament edition."

All that being said, I play 1000 points of all Kroot (Aside from HQ's) and I'm loving them this edition. My local meta is super casual, but still, it's freaking Kroot, supposed to be the meemeiest of the meme armies, and I'm winning handily. I think that the tools to abuse are far more prevalent in 9th with how much there is to each codex, but I also feel like if you have a community (fortunately like mine) that are all casual players and don't care about meta builds and online lists, you can still have a blast in casual 9th.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/15 22:01:56


Post by: Void__Dragon


 AnomanderRake wrote:
Internal balance is worse than it's ever been


It certainly isn't my friend. If you believe that you pretty clearly don't know much about ninth edition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 AnomanderRake wrote:

Such "pariah armies" include CSM, which on one hand, sure, "GW hates CSM!" jokes, but on the other hand if CSM get to be in the "no, we can't be bothered to make playable rules for several editions at a time" doghouse nobody is immune.


CSM is an eighth edition codex. How is its internal balance relevant to ninth edition's?


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/15 22:07:35


Post by: Daedalus81


 AnomanderRake wrote:
Such "pariah armies" include CSM, which on one hand, sure, "GW hates CSM!" jokes, but on the other hand if CSM get to be in the "no, we can't be bothered to make playable rules for several editions at a time" doghouse nobody is immune.


Yes, there surely were lots of missed opportunities for the to make CSM more viable, but their time is nearly here and I'll wager fans of the 3.5 codex will enjoy it ( barring inclusion of daemons ).


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/15 22:12:59


Post by: drbored


Setting arguments of 'which is better' aside, you are left with a choice: Do you play 9th edition or not?

If you want to play 9th edition, how do you get into it? WintersSEO put up a good video about this, but I'll go ahead and break it down for everyone here.

A. Find someone that already knows the edition and ask if you can learn under them. Many hobbyists that care to grow their community (and wont just gatekeep) will actually WANT to teach you, because if they can teach you, then they have more people to play against, and everyone has a good time.

B. Start small. 500 points, 1000 points, and don't start with stratagems (perhaps other than the command re-roll) or secondary objectives. Play Open Play missions with 1 detachment. This will help you get the flow of the game, the army abilities unique to you, and let you test out lots of different things with your collection or Combat Patrol/Start Collecting box.

C. Once you have that under your belt, start adding in the rest of your stratagems and other army abilities. This will help you understand the importance and flow of command points, and which stratagems work best for you and your playstyle. You'll also be able to see what your opponent brings in terms of stratagems, and learning the stratagems your opponent is likely to use against you is important. (Especially if you're learning, your opponent should warn you ahead of time what stratagems they have in their back pocket. There should be no 'gotcha' moments in a learning game, save those for the tournaments).

D. After you've gotten a few games of that in and feel pretty confident, start playing the Matched Play missions from the various sources, like the Core Rulebook, Tournament Mission Packs, and Chapter Approved. Start using secondaries. You'll have a pretty good idea of which ones will work best for your playstyle by now. As you get more comfortable, THEN start adding points. 1000 point games are good for a good long time, and build up towards 1250, 1500, 1750, and eventually 2000 and up if you care to. This will give you time to build and paint your collection and learn which units your army is missing, or that you want to play with, rather than simply buying a bunch of stuff to get to 2000 points as quickly as possible and not knowing what to do with it.

A lot of this advice is good for ANY game and ANY edition, but it's amazing how quickly people online would rather argue rather than HELP people get from game to game or edition to edition.

And if you want your community to grow (and you should, because more community means more players and more chance GW will grow and make more minis that you want), you'll take the time to teach the newbies rather than try to soapbox about whatever is the best edition. 9th edition has FLAWS, and those flaws have driven me, personally, away from wanting to dig into it, but that said, if I were to teach new players, or learn myself, this is the formula I'd follow.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/15 22:14:07


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Void__Dragon wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
Internal balance is worse than it's ever been


It certainly isn't my friend. If you believe that you pretty clearly don't know much about ninth edition.


I don't keep up with the meta, no, I stopped playing 9th because my entire experience of it consisted of getting beaten up and then given sad lectures about how I bought the wrong models and if I only bought new armies everything would be fine. I know that my experience gets dismissed by people who play 9th a lot because "oh, your Codex's tournament winrate is fine, it's okay" when everyone playing it in tournaments is playing the same cookie-cutter netlist containing no models I own, or because I play strange niche armies that of course GW couldn't be bothered to support like CSM or Deathwatch, or because they're playing Crusade which they like better than tournament play therefore everything's fine, or because I don't have a 9e Codex yet and when I get one everything will be fine (even after it demonstrably isn't), or because at least it's not (insert made-up fact about how a game of 7th required you to memorize five hundred pages of rules and then took fourteen hours to play here).

The only thing I know for certain is that I find 9e incredibly unfun, and whenever I say that, or suggest playing something else, there's an endless parade of people ready to come out of the woodwork and explain gently to me that it'd all be fine if I bought a different army. If you're prepared to deal with that situation, or if you're prepared to go buy a different army, great! You'll have a fun time playing 9th like all the other people having a great time playing 9th, because you're that kind of player! If you're not that kind of player, however, I'd rather you got this perspective ahead of time, before dumping hundreds or thousands of dollars into the game and then discovering you don't like it very much.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Void__Dragon wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:

Such "pariah armies" include CSM, which on one hand, sure, "GW hates CSM!" jokes, but on the other hand if CSM get to be in the "no, we can't be bothered to make playable rules for several editions at a time" doghouse nobody is immune.


CSM is an eighth edition codex. How is its internal balance relevant to ninth edition's?


Because unlike sensible game companies that update everything all at once when they do a new edition GW's determined to keep up with the rolling update schedule that means I get to either sit out of 40k 50% of the time because my Codex comes about halfway through an edition, or play an army that's been utterly left behind by power creep and lose every game for that 50% of the time, or buy a different army!.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
Such "pariah armies" include CSM, which on one hand, sure, "GW hates CSM!" jokes, but on the other hand if CSM get to be in the "no, we can't be bothered to make playable rules for several editions at a time" doghouse nobody is immune.


Yes, there surely were lots of missed opportunities for the to make CSM more viable, but their time is nearly here and I'll wager fans of the 3.5 codex will enjoy it ( barring inclusion of daemons ).


I'll bet you as an Alpha Legion player I won't enjoy the Codex. I'm expecting the army to get either no new models or one new character, all the sub-faction content to be reprints of the late-8th stuff except for one that gets something incredibly OP just to make sure the tournament people go gasp! and buy CSM armies, at least one unit to stay at 8e wound counts (1 for power armour/2 for Terminators) because GW forgot them and then doesn't remember to FAQ them, and only the weapons that share a name with loyalist SM weapons to get updated statlines while CSM-specific weapons stay at the 8e standard.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/15 22:23:31


Post by: Tawnis


 AnomanderRake wrote:


I don't keep up with the meta, no, I stopped playing 9th because my entire experience of it consisted of getting beaten up and then given sad lectures about how I bought the wrong models and if I only bought new armies everything would be fine. I know that my experience gets dismissed by people who play 9th a lot because "oh, your Codex's tournament winrate is fine, it's okay" when everyone playing it in tournaments is playing the same cookie-cutter netlist containing no models I own, or because I play strange niche armies that of course GW couldn't be bothered to support like CSM or Deathwatch, or because they're playing Crusade which they like better than tournament play therefore everything's fine, or because I don't have a 9e Codex yet and when I get one everything will be fine (even after it demonstrably isn't), or because at least it's not (insert made-up fact about how a game of 7th required you to memorize five hundred pages of rules and then took fourteen hours to play here).

The only thing I know for certain is that I find 9e incredibly unfun, and whenever I say that, or suggest playing something else, there's an endless parade of people ready to come out of the woodwork and explain gently to me that it'd all be fine if I bought a different army. If you're prepared to deal with that situation, or if you're prepared to go buy a different army, great! You'll have a fun time playing 9th like all the other people having a great time playing 9th, because you're that kind of player! If you're not that kind of player, however, I'd rather you got this perspective ahead of time, before dumping hundreds or thousands of dollars into the game and then discovering you don't like it very much.



While your complaints about 9th are certainly valid, this seems just as much an issue with the people in your community being meta chasing win at all cost nobheads.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/15 22:25:24


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Tawnis wrote:
...While your complaints about 9th are certainly valid, this seems just as much an issue with the people in your community being meta chasing win at all cost nobheads.


I one hundred percent accept that the people I play with are all dicks, which is a big part of me not playing 9th. That said I get the exact same lectures here on Dakka as I do in person from those guys when I make the same observations, which leads me to think that it could be a broader problem.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/15 22:27:26


Post by: ccs


 Tawnis wrote:

I just introduced a friend of mine to the game recently and he had much the same reaction as you, his literal words were "How the hell do you remember all this nonsense!"


I have a buddy who gave 9th a try with us in the shops winter Crusade last year.
Last he'd played was 5th(?). He imediately discovered that there were more rules involved in playing his SMs than there were for the game itself.
You should have heard the ranting....


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/15 22:34:22


Post by: Tawnis


 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Tawnis wrote:
...While your complaints about 9th are certainly valid, this seems just as much an issue with the people in your community being meta chasing win at all cost nobheads.


I one hundred percent accept that the people I play with are all dicks, which is a big part of me not playing 9th. That said I get the exact same lectures here on Dakka as I do in person from those guys when I make the same observations, which leads me to think that it could be a broader problem.


Makes sense, far more competitive people tend to frequent forums like this rather than the casual players. As far as I know, no one in my local community uses sites like this, they just buy the rulebook, their codex, models they think are cool, and assume that's all there is too it.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I think you're half right, it's just that your sample group is proportionally skewed. My recommendation if you were ever to try 9th again, (or even 10th when it comes out as I can't imagine GW's track record is set to improve all that much) is to just find some hole in the wall LGS and see if they have a casual 40k community.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/15 22:54:19


Post by: PenitentJake


The advice about starting small is excellent.

In a 25 PL game, you only get 3 command points + 1 per turn. Pick the five most interesting strats in your dex, and don't worry about anything else.

I would also suggest using PL instead of points, because it simplifies decisions about equipment. I know it's not as balanced once you've got a few games under your belt, and if you're competitive minded, you'll eventually want that granularity. But while you're learning, it's a lot easier.

You may also want to start with open play, or missions out of the BRB.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/15 22:59:09


Post by: drbored


PenitentJake wrote:
The advice about starting small is excellent.

In a 25 PL game, you only get 3 command points + 1 per turn. Pick the five most interesting strats in your dex, and don't worry about anything else.

I would also suggest using PL instead of points, because it simplifies decisions about equipment. I know it's not as balanced once you've got a few games under your belt, and if you're competitive minded, you'll eventually want that granularity. But while you're learning, it's a lot easier.

You may also want to start with open play, or missions out of the BRB.


This right here ^

Also, even Tabletop Tactics, who are quite competitively minded, agree that the edition is 'a bit much'. Great video of good perspective.




Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/15 23:20:31


Post by: Jarms48


I've played ever since 3rd edition and stopped when 7th introduced formations. Came back around the end of 8th.

It's definitely a pain with how many resources you need to bring to just play. I'm expected to bring the rulebook, your codex, psychic awakening, the new CA 2021, FAQ's, etc.

After discovering wahapedia it's certainly much easier. Though if I want to play at a GW store or even I can't rely on that. Like literally, that website is a lifesaver.

List building is a pain now. Though battlescribe has made it much easier.

So at least there's ways to get around much of the pain. My biggest issue is remembering stratagems.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/15 23:38:38


Post by: Ordana


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Feels like a regular Dakka poster made an alt to complain about 9th edition. As if we didn't have enough threads on it.
I can see how you might think that.

Ofcourse another option is that this sounds so much like what others have complained about (myself included) because this is exactly what the returning players we are encountering in real life are saying.

(Since my club reopened after lockdown 2 players have tried 9th that haven't played much since 5/6th. Both of them reached basically the same conclusion. That all the stuff in the codex that stacks on top of the base game is to much to parse and that they are overwhelmed by the options available and have no desire to spend the time trying to parse all the varies relics, traits and stratagems and secondaries just to play a game of 9th roughly twice a month.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/15 23:52:10


Post by: Daedalus81


 Ordana wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Feels like a regular Dakka poster made an alt to complain about 9th edition. As if we didn't have enough threads on it.
I can see how you might think that.

Ofcourse another option is that this sounds so much like what others have complained about (myself included) because this is exactly what the returning players we are encountering in real life are saying.

(Since my club reopened after lockdown 2 players have tried 9th that haven't played much since 5/6th. Both of them reached basically the same conclusion. That all the stuff in the codex that stacks on top of the base game is to much to parse and that they are overwhelmed by the options available and have no desire to spend the time trying to parse all the varies relics, traits and stratagems and secondaries just to play a game of 9th roughly twice a month.


I know. I'm just being a douche, really. But it also hasn't ever been this easy to get into the core rules. You don't have to use everything from the get-go and realistically most of us didn't.



Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/15 23:52:46


Post by: BrianDavion


 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Tawnis wrote:
...While your complaints about 9th are certainly valid, this seems just as much an issue with the people in your community being meta chasing win at all cost nobheads.


I one hundred percent accept that the people I play with are all dicks, which is a big part of me not playing 9th. That said I get the exact same lectures here on Dakka as I do in person from those guys when I make the same observations, which leads me to think that it could be a broader problem.


complaining about a lack of internal balance in a codex and claiming "it's worse then ever": though is a straight up LIE when you're discussing a 8th edition codex. NO ONE denies that 8th edition had internal balance issues (so did 5th 6th and 7th) the actual armies with 9th edition codices however have very good internal balance. it's not perfect but it's definatly better then it's been in ages.

quit bitching about 9th edition being the problem when the real problem is you're using a 8th edition codex that wasn't very good in 8th and thus isn't going to magicly be any better with a simple edition change


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/16 00:32:10


Post by: Daedalus81


BrianDavion wrote:
quit bitching about 9th edition being the problem when the real problem is you're using a 8th edition codex that wasn't very good in 8th and thus isn't going to magicly be any better with a simple edition change


Well, that's sort of his point. He doesn't have any choice and GW could have left him in a better position with some more effort. 9th took him out of the running.



Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/16 00:44:06


Post by: AnomanderRake


BrianDavion wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Tawnis wrote:
...While your complaints about 9th are certainly valid, this seems just as much an issue with the people in your community being meta chasing win at all cost nobheads.


I one hundred percent accept that the people I play with are all dicks, which is a big part of me not playing 9th. That said I get the exact same lectures here on Dakka as I do in person from those guys when I make the same observations, which leads me to think that it could be a broader problem.


complaining about a lack of internal balance in a codex and claiming "it's worse then ever": though is a straight up LIE when you're discussing a 8th edition codex. NO ONE denies that 8th edition had internal balance issues (so did 5th 6th and 7th) the actual armies with 9th edition codices however have very good internal balance. it's not perfect but it's definatly better then it's been in ages.

quit bitching about 9th edition being the problem when the real problem is you're using a 8th edition codex that wasn't very good in 8th and thus isn't going to magicly be any better with a simple edition change


I bought a Primaris army going into 9th because I thought there was less chance GW would screw me over if I had new models. Made the mistake of building them as Deathwatch, pauldrons and all. And then GW decided that what the Deathwatch really needed was to be turned into a slightly more complicated way of playing Space Marines with no Chapter Tactics. My 8e Codexes were terrible. My experience of playing 9e with a 9e Codex has been pretty terrible. And the "oh, but you're using an 8e Codex still!" is a pretty awful argument, given that you're again presenting players with the choice of getting beaten up because of cross-edition power creep, not playing for ~half an edition every cycle (sometimes more, sometimes less), or buying a different army. GW didn't do Indexes at the start of 9th, they said "you can still use your 8e Codex and it's fine!" And given that pretty much my sole bar for the quality of a minis game is "I can put models I like on the table, push them around, and have something resembling a close game!" saying "9e is great so long as you ignore all the Codexes that haven't yet been updated" isn't particularly helpful.

I wish to stress here that I'm not complaining because I think 9th specifically is the problem, I'm aware all of the things I complain about have been GW problems at least as far back as late 5e. I'm complaining because I feel like there's a revisionist historian crowd that's shown up in 8e/9e that's determined to shout about how 8e/9e represent GW turning over a new leaf and it's all smiles and roses and sunlit uplands from here on out and everything's going to be great, despite the fact that everything that's wrong with 8e/9e is the same stuff that was wrong with 6e/7e (bloat, game scale creep, excessive barrier to entry, poor balance, uneven distribution of releases) for the exact same reasons (Codex-based update schedule, lack of testing, presumption that the community either doesn't care or will self-correct, desire to make people buy multiple armies, only caring about the armies that the people on the dev team actually play during their lunch breaks, no central design vision).


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/16 00:53:10


Post by: drbored


 Daedalus81 wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
quit bitching about 9th edition being the problem when the real problem is you're using a 8th edition codex that wasn't very good in 8th and thus isn't going to magicly be any better with a simple edition change


Well, that's sort of his point. He doesn't have any choice and GW could have left him in a better position with some more effort. 9th took him out of the running.



I'm absolutely going to bitch if my Codex doesn't get updated for 2 out of the 3 active years of an edition, and then is promptly made worse by the next edition that comes out. I seriously feel bad for people that have an army that's updated in the last year of an edition's life cycle. They get the worst of all the worlds. Not enough time to be potent enough to matter, a bunch of rules and stats get invalidated by the new edition, and then they have to wait another long period of time for another update that might be at the end of an edition life cycle as well.

It's on GW to keep things updated, and the fact of the matter is that they're using an archaic system of updating rules. This isn't Dungeons and Dragons where an edition can last 5+ years and you can slowly expand the game through it's life cycle. Having 1/3rd of your game be out of date for the majority of the edition is a REALLY CRAPPY FEELING.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/16 01:13:22


Post by: Brutus_Apex


9th ed is fine. It's fun if you play casually. It's better than 8th anyway.

But...

The "simplification" of 40K from 8th ed onward is the biggest lie GW ever sold (well, there was also the Finecast debacle).

All they did was push the bloat from the main rules to codex's and supplements and made it worse by not implementing USR's and standardization of definitions.

They've made the game unwieldy and unfriendly to users.

USR's is THE ONLY proper way to codify and create a system of rules. You may prefer bespoke rules, but it is objectively worse in every facet.

Just get Army Builder and look on 1D4 Chan for all the rules. Some times the rules aren't up to date, but it's no different than buying an outdated Codex that you need an FAQ for anyway. It will make the game make a lot more sense.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/16 01:25:31


Post by: drbored


 Brutus_Apex wrote:
9th ed is fine. It's fun if you play casually. It's better than 8th anyway.

But...

The "simplification" of 40K from 8th ed onward is the biggest lie GW ever sold (well, there was also the Finecast debacle).

All they did was push the bloat from the main rules to codex's and supplements and made it worse by not implementing USR's and standardization of definitions.

They've made the game unwieldy and unfriendly to users.

USR's is THE ONLY proper way to codify and create a system of rules. You may prefer bespoke rules, but it is objectively worse in every facet.

Just get Army Builder and look on 1D4 Chan for all the rules. Some times the rules aren't up to date, but it's no different than buying an outdated Codex that you need an FAQ for anyway. It will make the game make a lot more sense.


I wouldn't say it's worse in every facet, but I will concede that when you have the same rule, for example a stratagem that gives you +1 to wound, and just call it something else in every Codex, then that's something that should have been in the Core rules all along. Expand the list of 'generic' Stratagems so everyone has access to a lot of the same stuff, limit the stratagems to ALL be once per battle, and halve the amount of command points people get, and you'd be heading in roughly the right direction.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/16 02:13:42


Post by: Gnarlly


PenitentJake wrote:

Also, even Tabletop Tactics, who are quite competitively minded, agree that the edition is 'a bit much'. Great video of good perspective.




A lot of very good points raised in this video. I’m always glad when the guys at Tabletop Tactics let their opinions be heard.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/16 05:09:12


Post by: ccs


 AnomanderRake wrote:

I bought a Primaris army going into 9th because I thought there was less chance GW would screw me over if I had new models. Made the mistake of building them as Deathwatch, pauldrons and all. And then GW decided that what the Deathwatch really needed was to be turned into a slightly more complicated way of playing Space Marines with no Chapter Tactics. My 8e Codexes were terrible. My experience of playing 9e with a 9e Codex has been pretty terrible. And the "oh, but you're using an 8e Codex still!" is a pretty awful argument, given that you're again presenting players with the choice of getting beaten up because of cross-edition power creep, not playing for ~half an edition every cycle (sometimes more, sometimes less), or buying a different army. GW didn't do Indexes at the start of 9th, they said "you can still use your 8e Codex and it's fine!" And given that pretty much my sole bar for the quality of a minis game is "I can put models I like on the table, push them around, and have something resembling a close game!" saying "9e is great so long as you ignore all the Codexes that haven't yet been updated" isn't particularly helpful.


So am I reading this right that you built an entire new army for 9th, of one of the chapters that's noted for having specialized rules (wich always shift edition to edition) using the 8th ed codex, - when you knew up front/very early on that DW was to be one of the initial codex books? But you just couldn't wait that 8-10 weeks or whatever from 9es launch for the new book to arrive....
If so, that sounds like a sure fire way to set yourself up for disappointment.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/16 05:25:40


Post by: drbored


ccs wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:

I bought a Primaris army going into 9th because I thought there was less chance GW would screw me over if I had new models. Made the mistake of building them as Deathwatch, pauldrons and all. And then GW decided that what the Deathwatch really needed was to be turned into a slightly more complicated way of playing Space Marines with no Chapter Tactics. My 8e Codexes were terrible. My experience of playing 9e with a 9e Codex has been pretty terrible. And the "oh, but you're using an 8e Codex still!" is a pretty awful argument, given that you're again presenting players with the choice of getting beaten up because of cross-edition power creep, not playing for ~half an edition every cycle (sometimes more, sometimes less), or buying a different army. GW didn't do Indexes at the start of 9th, they said "you can still use your 8e Codex and it's fine!" And given that pretty much my sole bar for the quality of a minis game is "I can put models I like on the table, push them around, and have something resembling a close game!" saying "9e is great so long as you ignore all the Codexes that haven't yet been updated" isn't particularly helpful.


So am I reading this right that you built an entire new army for 9th, of one of the chapters that's noted for having specialized rules (wich always shift edition to edition) using the 8th ed codex, - when you knew up front/very early on that DW was to be one of the initial codex books? But you just couldn't wait that 8-10 weeks or whatever from 9es launch for the new book to arrive....
If so, that sounds like a sure fire way to set yourself up for disappointment.


It says something that building an army a way that currently exists means you're "setting yourself up for disappointment" when that army gets updated. Frankly, that just shouldn't be the way of things. When a game is updated, you ideally ought to be quite pleased with the new ways you can play with your army, the new rules, and the new units that are added. Having an army invalidated because of an update just sucks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Gnarlly wrote:
PenitentJake wrote:

Also, even Tabletop Tactics, who are quite competitively minded, agree that the edition is 'a bit much'. Great video of good perspective.




A lot of very good points raised in this video. I’m always glad when the guys at Tabletop Tactics let their opinions be heard.


My genuine hope is that they're delivering this feedback to GW. They are, after all, one of the playtesters and contributed quite a bit to the development of 8th and 9th edition. So if Spider and Chef in particular see issues, the hope is that they're giving this constructive feedback to get improvements into the next edition.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/16 07:12:35


Post by: Blackie


drbored wrote:


It says something that building an army a way that currently exists means you're "setting yourself up for disappointment" when that army gets updated. Frankly, that just shouldn't be the way of things. When a game is updated, you ideally ought to be quite pleased with the new ways you can play with your army, the new rules, and the new units that are added. Having an army invalidated because of an update just sucks.



It depends on how you build the army. If it's a competitive take for an older edition you can't be surprised if it doesn't work in the current one. That's why I ALWAYS suggest people that are about to start a new army to get a bit of everything, regardless of how those armies currently work. This way they'll never field the flavour of the month but they'll also always have functioning lists. I still play with the Space Wolves I've bought during 5th-7th editions, full firstborn army (3500ish points). It's not a skew collection of a few units, so it works fairly good: I won't win any tournament, even local ones, but I'm doing ok against anyone that is not willing to replace his army every year. I didn't have to buy a single primaris dude just to make it viable.

And primaris/gravis dudes are good enough that any collection of SM made from starters actually works perfectly fine (if not even too good) at casual levels, regardless of the chapter. I found hard to believe that a full Deathwatch primaris/gravis collection of models doesn't work at all. Unless maybe it's an actual skew list from an older edition.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/16 07:31:08


Post by: ccs


drbored wrote:
ccs wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:

I bought a Primaris army going into 9th because I thought there was less chance GW would screw me over if I had new models. Made the mistake of building them as Deathwatch, pauldrons and all. And then GW decided that what the Deathwatch really needed was to be turned into a slightly more complicated way of playing Space Marines with no Chapter Tactics. My 8e Codexes were terrible. My experience of playing 9e with a 9e Codex has been pretty terrible. And the "oh, but you're using an 8e Codex still!" is a pretty awful argument, given that you're again presenting players with the choice of getting beaten up because of cross-edition power creep, not playing for ~half an edition every cycle (sometimes more, sometimes less), or buying a different army. GW didn't do Indexes at the start of 9th, they said "you can still use your 8e Codex and it's fine!" And given that pretty much my sole bar for the quality of a minis game is "I can put models I like on the table, push them around, and have something resembling a close game!" saying "9e is great so long as you ignore all the Codexes that haven't yet been updated" isn't particularly helpful.


So am I reading this right that you built an entire new army for 9th, of one of the chapters that's noted for having specialized rules (wich always shift edition to edition) using the 8th ed codex, - when you knew up front/very early on that DW was to be one of the initial codex books? But you just couldn't wait that 8-10 weeks or whatever from 9es launch for the new book to arrive....
If so, that sounds like a sure fire way to set yourself up for disappointment.


It says something that building an army a way that currently exists means you're "setting yourself up for disappointment" when that army gets updated. Frankly, that just shouldn't be the way of things. When a game is updated, you ideally ought to be quite pleased with the new ways you can play with your army, the new rules, and the new units that are added. Having an army invalidated because of an update just sucks.


Yes, but that way that existed at that moment(assuming I'm reading Rake correctly)? Was for A) a faction that every time it appears has had funky different rules, & not quite the same twice - wich is really important/sometimes costly when setting up units, & B) only weeks away from having its 9e version hit the shelves.
I mean, I'd barely assembled anything from my Indom box & I already knew that the next two books after SM/Necron were SW & DW. It wasn't a secret.
And while I'm in no way a proponent of the typical Dakka advice of "Wait for____ "(next faq/next CA/next tourney/or codex - when there's zero indication how long that wait will be). If I knew the book was only weeks away, even I'd advise "Wait". Afterall, why would you build the funky rules army to the previous standard at the last moment, with the new book almost within reach & gamble??


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/16 07:57:29


Post by: a_typical_hero


 Peakab00 wrote:
How is anyone realistically supposed to know all the potential stats, relics, customs, special rules involved in an army? I'm finding this is almost taken the just play/have fun element out of game, any finding all the rules involved almost too much to learn ? Also creating an army list seems way more complex than I can previously remember. How can I simplify all this ?

I started playing my old IG army last Tuesday (after being on the shelf for 10 years) and how I approached it was this:
- Picked the units I wanted to use and put them into a list
- Read through the stratagems each unit I included could use (it is consolidated on Wahapedia)
- Noted down which ones sounded good to me, which was 1 per unit, most of the time. Notable exception being Scions who had 4.
- Picked whatever relics and Warlord traits sounded good to me
- Played the game

After one 1000p game I already memorised the profile for each unit and the Stratagems that I made use of while playing.

This is more than you had to do 15 years ago during 4th edition, but I'm sure you will manage.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/16 08:08:51


Post by: Blackie


Yeah, another thing I can't understand is why some people feel the need to know everything about everything since the beginning. Read the codex once, focus on the units you like or have, focus on the rules that you think suit those units better and start playing. A codex lasts 3 years on average, there's plenty of time to try all the combinations someone may want to try at some point.

I flat out ignored large portions of my 7th/8th/9th codexes because they involved units/items/chapters/tactics/formations I wasn't interested in, regardless of how they performed. Specifically I haven't read a single line about primaris/gravis stuff for my SW and anything Snagga related for orks. There are also some klans I'll never even try because I don't like their style of playing (which is pretty clear by reading once their dedicated page) and/or their lore, so I can skip all their rules. Where's the issue?

It's another iteration of the GIMME EVERYTHING NOW!!! concept, that I strongly dislike.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/16 09:15:59


Post by: kodos


just reading a little bit, buying units for 600€, reading another bit and realsing that you like other stuff more, put 600€ on the shelf and buy something new?

people want to know everything from the start because 40k is that expensive that you want to make sure you get the stuff you like the first time
 Blackie wrote:
I still play with the Space Wolves I've bought during 5th-7th editions, full firstborn army (3500ish points)

This just means that you need a big collection of models to be future proof and going with a 1500 point army now, you end up with not enough the next CA if you have bad luck

having double the amount of models you need for a list, your chance is good that you still have enough no matter the changes (unless they bring back 7th Edi like formation, than your 3,5k points might be 500-1000 points short for a 2k game)


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/16 11:25:55


Post by: Blackie


I believe people should play with half their collections or less, yes. Are you interested in 2000 points games? Then 3500-4000 points collections are recommended. You can change a lot of lists and when things are inevitable shaken up you'll always be able to play decent lists. Do you have 1500-2000 points of models? Focus on 1000 points games.

My point is that people demands everything now. To buy, build and paint 3500 points of SW took me something like 5 years and a couple of editions.

Someone that starts should aim at 1000 points games probably for years. That's what I did when I was a kid. Buying 600 euro of stuff and adding a lot more just after a few months or 1 year because in the meanwhile things changed is insane, I hope no ones is suggesting that is the way to go. Unless we're talking about people that are willing to pay that much in such short period of time and can actually afford it as no big deal; in that case it's their choice and I respect it.

But I can't understand those who want to play at the higher format immediately and be ok with that collection forever. 2k games are not meant for beginners, let alone tournaments.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/16 11:43:10


Post by: the_scotsman


 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Tawnis wrote:
...While your complaints about 9th are certainly valid, this seems just as much an issue with the people in your community being meta chasing win at all cost nobheads.


I one hundred percent accept that the people I play with are all dicks, which is a big part of me not playing 9th. That said I get the exact same lectures here on Dakka as I do in person from those guys when I make the same observations, which leads me to think that it could be a broader problem.


There is technically a third option - make up a quick fandex.

After the news that codex csm would be waiting until 2022, my group (which has several csm players) held a little show of hands and agreed to edit the csm codex with the likely upcoming stat changes, including the known datasheets for things like daemon princes, daemon engines etc from codex thousand sons. We also added two-part legion traits for the legions leaning heavily on existing traits as 'obviously fair' since theyre in other codexes, and added a simple rule in place of doctrines.

weve got it pinned on the discord, and when playing their CSM army people generally ask 'cool if I use the club rules?'


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/16 11:44:39


Post by: Tyel


 Blackie wrote:
I believe people should play with half their collections or less, yes. Are you interested in 2000 points games? Then 3500-4000 points collections are recommended. You can change a lot of lists and when things are inevitable shaken up you'll always be able to play decent lists. Do you have 1500-2000 points of models? Focus on 1000 points games.

My point is that people demands everything now. To buy, build and paint 3500 points of SW took me something like 5 years and a couple of editions.

Someone that starts should aim at 1000 points games probably for years. That's what I did when I was a kid. Buying 600 euro of stuff and adding a lot more just after a few months or 1 year because in the meanwhile things changed is insane, I hope no ones is suggesting that is the way to go. Unless we're talking about people that are willing to pay that much in such short period of time and can actually afford it as no big deal; in that case it's their choice and I respect it.

But I can't understand those who want to play at the higher format immediately and be ok with that collection forever. 2k games are not meant for beginners, let alone tournaments.


I think its a mentality thing - especially if you are older.

So I've got some friends who want to branch out from 40k (boo hiss). But I look at things like Bolt Action, or ASOIAF minuatures game. And I want to know *everything*. What are all the miniatures, factions, special rules etc. And you do have this mindset of "I'm going to buy 1 army, whatever the standard is, and thats it, so it better be right". (I.E. I need to like how it looks and plays, but it also needs to not be completely rubbish rules wise because I won't enjoy just losing all the time.)

Its very different to say how I started 40k, which was with a bunch of other people at a young age - and so we could all just progressively expand our collections by 500 points every 6-12 months.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/16 11:49:23


Post by: kodos


 Blackie wrote:
Someone that starts should aim at 1000 points games probably for years

a new Edition every 3 years and a new Codex within each new Edition, starting with a 1000 point games now (with the Edition being 1 year old, and the faction you want has no new Codex), you need 2000 points worth of models within a year to be save to have enough your new Codex or a new Edition changes things (or even CA might change points and you need 1-2 different units within half a year)

you needed 5 years to collect you 4k army how many different Editions and Codex have you seen during that 5 years?

now you need to collect those 4k within half the time to be save because otherwise you might end up with those problems

hence why people want everything now, because small amounts over a long period now means "within a year"



Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/16 11:49:47


Post by: Sim-Life


 Blackie wrote:
I believe people should play with half their collections or less, yes. Are you interested in 2000 points games? Then 3500-4000 points collections are recommended. You can change a lot of lists and when things are inevitable shaken up you'll always be able to play decent lists. Do you have 1500-2000 points of models? Focus on 1000 points games.

My point is that people demands everything now. To buy, build and paint 3500 points of SW took me something like 5 years and a couple of editions.

Someone that starts should aim at 1000 points games probably for years. That's what I did when I was a kid. Buying 600 euro of stuff and adding a lot more just after a few months or 1 year because in the meanwhile things changed is insane, I hope no ones is suggesting that is the way to go. Unless we're talking about people that are willing to pay that much in such short period of time and can actually afford it as no big deal; in that case it's their choice and I respect it.

But I can't understand those who want to play at the higher format immediately and be ok with that collection forever. 2k games are not meant for beginners, let alone tournaments.


So we're back to "just buy better models"?


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/16 11:50:44


Post by: the_scotsman


 Peakab00 wrote:
Got back into playing 40k After 15 years away, I thought Id start with ORKS - Remembering them being a fairly easy race to pick-up, problem being they is only one real tactic with them and that's "rush" everything forward and close, and see how it pans out, So new Codex brought - absolute mind scramble! The rule changes and stratagems I cannot recall 40k being this complex several releases ago. absolute mountain of information to process almost takes the fun out of it?

How is anyone realistically supposed to know all the potential stats, relics, customs, special rules involved in an army? I'm finding this is almost taken the just play/have fun element out of game, any finding all the rules involved almost too much to learn ? Also creating an army list seems way more complex than I can previously remember. How can I simplify all this ?


15 years away - IIRC this would be fifth edition then - basically, a lot of the 'micro-wargear' choices from fifth edition's strategy layer have been shifted to traits, subfactions, and relics.

for the most part, the easiest way to approach it is: Just pick one of each you like, write that down, and remember that one.

You get 1 free warlord trait (on the model you designate as your Warlord, which matters sometimes in missions and such) and 1 free relic on a character in the warlord's detachment...which can and frequently is also just the same model who got the warlord trait.

So you take your Warboss, and you give him a trait, you give him a relic, and then you're done if you want to be. Your warboss has a fancy melee weapon instead of a regular power klaw or choppa, and he's got a trait that makes him hit extra good, or live extra long, or something.

and as for how to simplify army building: Remember the force org chart? 1 HQ, 2 troops, 3 of each slot?

That's called "Battalion" now. 2 HQ, 3 troops, 3 of each slot. Build your whole army into that, and you start out with the maximum number of command points. If you're playign a smaller game, you can go for a "Patrol" - 1HQ, 1 Troops, 2 extra of each slot.

Basically, "Patrol" "Battalion" and "Brigade" are the three basic detachments, and they pretty much work like the old force org slot but they allow for flexibility, like if you want to play a really small game or a really big game.

The rest of them - 'outrider' 'spearhead' 'vanguard' etc are there to replace the thing from fifth edition where sometimes you could take a biker character and make bikes troops, or take a terminator character and make terminators troops. Nobody can 'move around slots' anymore, instead you can just pay some of your command points in order to take a list that's got lots of fast attack, or a list that's got lots of heavy supports. it's there to make those kind of 'spam lists' cost you a resource to offset the natural advantage you get from having an imbalanced army composition.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/16 11:52:48


Post by: Unit1126PLL


It's a mentality thing and an expectation thing. In 4th, your opponent could be like:
"Huh, looks like a tactical squad with a power sword sergeant, plasma gun, and lascannon. Six men, of course." And then tease you about the six man Las-Plas squad spam.
Or
"Wow, that's a lot of Leman Russes. I see you have a Vanquisher there and an Exterminator there..."

In each case, it is easy simply from looking at the models what each unit does. Las plas squad spams high strength AP2 and with the power sword is surprisingly choppy in melee. I know this because I have lascannons, plasma guns, and power swords in my army.

A Vanquisher? For the war enthusiast, it is obviously a tank hunter - longer barrel, more velocity.

An exterminator? Well I know what auto cannons are - a common weapon across a few armies! - so I can see this has a twin-linked autocannon. No blast, rerolls to hit. Because I also know what Twin Linked does.

Nowadays?
*Oh, this Russ is a Tank Commander. The weapon is the Hammer of Sunderance, not just a battle cannon. He can get the Relentless stratagem to ignore damage, or the Hail of Fire stratagem to max his number of shots against tanks. He has Vengeance for Cadia (if you're Chaos), Defensive Gunners (if you charge him), and possibly hits on 2s rerolling 1s (if you are Vostroyan)." None of which is apparent from looking at the model.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/16 11:55:58


Post by: Daedalus81


drbored wrote:
My genuine hope is that they're delivering this feedback to GW. They are, after all, one of the playtesters and contributed quite a bit to the development of 8th and 9th edition. So if Spider and Chef in particular see issues, the hope is that they're giving this constructive feedback to get improvements into the next edition.


Some of their suggestions? No.

Open digital rules? Yes. More limitations on strat use and/or CP pool? Yes.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/16 13:40:03


Post by: KidCthulhu


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It's a mentality thing and an expectation thing. In 4th, your opponent could be like:
"Huh, looks like a tactical squad with a power sword sergeant, plasma gun, and lascannon. Six men, of course." And then tease you about the six man Las-Plas squad spam.
Or
"Wow, that's a lot of Leman Russes. I see you have a Vanquisher there and an Exterminator there..."

In each case, it is easy simply from looking at the models what each unit does. Las plas squad spams high strength AP2 and with the power sword is surprisingly choppy in melee. I know this because I have lascannons, plasma guns, and power swords in my army.

A Vanquisher? For the war enthusiast, it is obviously a tank hunter - longer barrel, more velocity.

An exterminator? Well I know what auto cannons are - a common weapon across a few armies! - so I can see this has a twin-linked autocannon. No blast, rerolls to hit. Because I also know what Twin Linked does.

Nowadays?
*Oh, this Russ is a Tank Commander. The weapon is the Hammer of Sunderance, not just a battle cannon. He can get the Relentless stratagem to ignore damage, or the Hail of Fire stratagem to max his number of shots against tanks. He has Vengeance for Cadia (if you're Chaos), Defensive Gunners (if you charge him), and possibly hits on 2s rerolling 1s (if you are Vostroyan)." None of which is apparent from looking at the model.


I can't exalt this enough. I felt this shift started with formations.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/16 14:12:59


Post by: Gert


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It's a mentality thing and an expectation thing. In 4th, your opponent could be like:
"Huh, looks like a tactical squad with a power sword sergeant, plasma gun, and lascannon. Six men, of course." And then tease you about the six man Las-Plas squad spam.
Or
"Wow, that's a lot of Leman Russes. I see you have a Vanquisher there and an Exterminator there..."

In each case, it is easy simply from looking at the models what each unit does. Las plas squad spams high strength AP2 and with the power sword is surprisingly choppy in melee. I know this because I have lascannons, plasma guns, and power swords in my army.

A Vanquisher? For the war enthusiast, it is obviously a tank hunter - longer barrel, more velocity.

An exterminator? Well I know what auto cannons are - a common weapon across a few armies! - so I can see this has a twin-linked autocannon. No blast, rerolls to hit. Because I also know what Twin Linked does.

Up until this point, all of this is still true. There isn't a single thing here that doesn't apply to 9th Edition.

Nowadays?
*Oh, this Russ is a Tank Commander. The weapon is the Hammer of Sunderance, not just a battle cannon. He can get the Relentless stratagem to ignore damage, or the Hail of Fire stratagem to max his number of shots against tanks. He has Vengeance for Cadia (if you're Chaos), Defensive Gunners (if you charge him), and possibly hits on 2s rerolling 1s (if you are Vostroyan)." None of which is apparent from looking at the model.

Good job you've spent at least 4/5 CP on a single unit for a single turn of advantages. Now you're 5 CP down the hole and it's only turn 2.
As for the "not obvious on the model", that's all relics. Of course, you only get one free Relic and models can only be equipped with one nad often it's limited to "X model only" or "unit equipped with X wargear only", unlike in previous Editions where you could stick the Burning Blade, Shield Eternal and Armour Indomitus/whatever all on the same Chapter Master making him almost impossible to kill while he tears your entire army a new one.
But hey, screw 9th Edition am I right?


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/16 14:13:22


Post by: Daedalus81


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Nowadays?
*Oh, this Russ is a Tank Commander. The weapon is the Hammer of Sunderance, not just a battle cannon. He can get the Relentless stratagem to ignore damage, or the Hail of Fire stratagem to max his number of shots against tanks. He has Vengeance for Cadia (if you're Chaos), Defensive Gunners (if you charge him), and possibly hits on 2s rerolling 1s (if you are Vostroyan)." None of which is apparent from looking at the model.


"This TC has a battle cannon relic, which I can amp up through strats. If you go after him I may make him tougher to kill. Charging vehicles in my army can be dangerous."

Then you get into details if they ask or when it matters.

And your example is not very different from:

"This Exterminator has a rear armor of 10 while this Executioner has a rear armor of 11"
"This ordnance battery has a Griffon and two Medusas, but the Griffon can reroll scatter dice. Now the Griffon does have a minimum range where the Medusa doesn't. If I use the breacher shells on the Medusa I'll get an extra D6 on the AP roll. "
"I have given this tank Pask as an upgrade. That means he hits on 3s instead and if he stands still I get Crack Shot, which means +1 on armor pen or rerolls to wound vs MC."
"Now, Al'Raheim here has a special order that...."
"I bought conscripts the upgrade allowed by Chenkov, which..."

None of these things are apparent by looking at the model.



Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/16 14:18:36


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Nowadays?
*Oh, this Russ is a Tank Commander. The weapon is the Hammer of Sunderance, not just a battle cannon. He can get the Relentless stratagem to ignore damage, or the Hail of Fire stratagem to max his number of shots against tanks. He has Vengeance for Cadia (if you're Chaos), Defensive Gunners (if you charge him), and possibly hits on 2s rerolling 1s (if you are Vostroyan)." None of which is apparent from looking at the model.


"This TC has a battle cannon relic, which I can amp up through strats. If you go after him I may make him tougher to kill. Charging vehicles in my army can be dangerous."

Then you get into details if they ask or when it matters.

And your example is not very different from:

"This Exterminator has a rear armor of 10 while this Executioner has a rear armor of 11"
"This ordnance battery has a Griffon and two Medusas, but the Griffon can reroll scatter dice. Now the Griffon does have a minimum range where the Medusa doesn't. If I use the breacher shells on the Medusa I'll get an extra D6 on the AP roll. "
"I have given this tank Pask as an upgrade. That means he hits on 3s instead and if he stands still I get Crack Shot, which means +1 on armor pen or rerolls to wound vs MC."
"Now, Al'Raheim here has a special order that...."
"I bought conscripts the upgrade allowed by Chenkov, which..."

None of these things are apparent by looking at the model.



Most of what you talk about was a problem in 5th and beyond... which may have something to do with why 4th is the edition I'd like to go back to, thanks. But yes, you're right, those were problems in 5th and was part of why IG was so infuriating to play against in 5th.

ALSO REMEMBER: 5th was designed by Alessio Cavatore to "streamline" 40k. Much like 8th... *thinkyface*

The only applicable one is the Rear Armor one - and would you look at that, until they updated the Russ kit (in 5th!), the Demolisher tank kit (the only RA11 one at the time) actually came with additional pewter armor bits to thicken the armor. Whaddya know!


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/16 15:18:11


Post by: spiralingcadaver


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Nowadays?
*Oh, this Russ is a Tank Commander. The weapon is the Hammer of Sunderance, not just a battle cannon. He can get the Relentless stratagem to ignore damage, or the Hail of Fire stratagem to max his number of shots against tanks. He has Vengeance for Cadia (if you're Chaos), Defensive Gunners (if you charge him), and possibly hits on 2s rerolling 1s (if you are Vostroyan)." None of which is apparent from looking at the model.

Yeah, great comparison. There are a lot of neat options, and once you get to know an opposing army/player it's very often not very cumbersome (I can expect x buff, y souped up characters, and these are the two offensive and defensive stratagems I'll need to contend with), but if you're not actively keeping up (and I don't), it can be nuts trying to figure out which version of what it is you're fighting, between individual unit options and subfaction options, guns that now look the same but have significantly different stats, and the ability to buy buffs during the game.

There are a lot of parts I genuinely enjoy in 8-9th 40k, but I do miss being able to glance at units and know, or learn after a brief exchange, exactly what models are capable of. Now, each unit has a more unique feel but that comes at a significant price to legibility, when the game plays with a relatively high unit count etc.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/16 15:29:07


Post by: bullyboy


I understand that it can be overwhelming but we've just had 2 players come back to the game and the last they played was around 3rd/4th edition. They felt the same way (one is now playing Grey Knights and the codex blew his mind). However, you have to just take a deep breath and start simple.
What I did was meet them at a store, take 2 armies with simple units at around 750ish points (maybe more). I then had them play the game with me walking them through each step (helping both sides)
Second game I played vs the GK player bringing a basic Eldar force. This time we played a mission but ignored secondary points. Like the first game, I talked him through each step, etc. Only thing I did not know was his new rules and strats. Still, we had a good game and he has a basic understanding of the mechanics. This game, even though only 1000pts each, took 3 1/2 hours. we both had the time so we used it to walk through each step, have him find the relevant parts in the codex etc.
Tomorrow we are playing another game, this time with 2 9th edition codexes. He has been learning more about his strategems so will see another layer of complexity.

This is really the way to do it. Start small....remove the extra layers and play the basics, then add a little extra each game.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/16 15:29:57


Post by: catbarf


 Daedalus81 wrote:
And your example is not very different from:

"This Exterminator has a rear armor of 10 while this Executioner has a rear armor of 11"
"This ordnance battery has a Griffon and two Medusas, but the Griffon can reroll scatter dice. Now the Griffon does have a minimum range where the Medusa doesn't. If I use the breacher shells on the Medusa I'll get an extra D6 on the AP roll. "
"I have given this tank Pask as an upgrade. That means he hits on 3s instead and if he stands still I get Crack Shot, which means +1 on armor pen or rerolls to wound vs MC."
"Now, Al'Raheim here has a special order that...."
"I bought conscripts the upgrade allowed by Chenkov, which..."


So we have an upgrade which is (or at least was) represented on the model, two oddball artillery pieces that your opponent might ask about because they don't have the weapon in their own army, and then three special characters from a codex that really didn't need them. Not really commonplace stuff.

Meanwhile in 9th Ed, the focus on synergy abilities and Stratagems means everything is like that. More to the point, they facilitate rule-breaking that means that any reasonable inferences you make about a unit's capabilities have a decent chance of being completely wrong.

If you're new you might guess from the models that Genestealers move the typical 6" as infantry and then charge. If you look at the datasheet you realize they can move 8", advance, and charge, so you stay about 20" away to be out of their typical threat range. But oops, they're Krakenstealers being move-twiced by the Swarmlord under Opportunistic Advance, and they can actually move an average of 31" before they charge.

If you're learning on your own, you wouldn't see this coming unless you know the codex well enough to be aware of an interaction between a specific character, subfaction, and stratagem. Even seeing the Genestealer datasheet isn't enough.

Obviously I could tell you in advance that Genestealers are actually super duper ridiculously fast if I spend CP and I could explain the Swarmlord's ability- but going through the entire army to explain the context under which any given unit can be supercharged is cumbersome, and with it being unintuitive from the models it's difficult to retain that information. I've seen a couple of new players get into the game and all of them take a lot longer to remember which units get to use a particular stratagem than what a lascannon looks like and what it does.

It's much easier for me to walk you through what all the visible wargear pieces than all the stratagems and abilities that might maybe potentially come up in-game. If you ask me for an overview of my army, I am probably not going to mention Implant Attack as a stratagem, as I only ever use it once in a blue moon, but in the rare event that your character heroically survives with one wound left I'll spend that 1CP to kill him and that'll probably be a feels-bad moment.

And I'm not even getting into how it all changes if those Genestealers are being played as Hydra instead of Kraken, and those heuristics you've established as a new player go out the window.

I think this:

"This TC has a battle cannon relic, which I can amp up through strats. If you go after him I may make him tougher to kill. Charging vehicles in my army can be dangerous."


Is exactly the point. In 9th, if you want to complete a game in a reasonable time you can't explain the nitty-gritty of a unit's full capabilities from the outset. It's assumed that you inform your opponent about your capabilities as they become relevant, because there's just too much crap that isn't obvious for you to explain or for them to remember. Most players seem to settle for learning the major stratagems and notable combos of their regular opponents and accept that they'll get blindsided from time to time, because actually learning the rules in full is unrealistic.

It absolutely has not always been like this.

Edit: And yes, I'll agree that if you strip out all the complexity and run a series of intro games you can teach a totally new player and have them playing 'full rules' within 5 games or so, at least to that level of 'I know generally what your army can do but you still need to explain it to me' level. It's not completely insurmountable. The point is that back in 3rd/4th, I didn't have to do that- typically one game without vehicles, then another with vehicles, and you're good to go. The learning curve has been made significantly steeper by intangible factors that add major cognitive burden to new players and experienced ones alike.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/16 15:37:28


Post by: vict0988


 Peakab00 wrote:
How is anyone realistically supposed to know all the potential stats, relics, customs, special rules involved in an army?

Start with an army, you don't need to remember all relics and WL traits, just the one relic and WL trait you brought. Then you note down all the Stratagems you can use for your army and which phases they are used in and read through that list of Stratagems a few times and make a cheat sheet to help you remember. Then you can start changing your army, the units, WL traits and relics used in that army to slowly get used to more and more units and rules. By the time the next Ork codex rolls around you will have learned the codex by heart, even if there is a lot.

"CSM is an eighth edition codex. How is its internal balance relevant to ninth edition's?"
It's what GW wants CSM players to use in 9th, stop being obtuse. How about Drukhari and AdMech vs Death Guard and Necrons? The relative power imbalance between these at release and the rest of 40k rivals the BS of Matt Ward's dexes in 5th, 6th edition Craftworlds and the 7th edition post Decurion power spike. Imagine if GW had gone back and retracted all the rules from formations and detachments except for WL trait re-roll and ObSec on troops, nerfed a half-dozen psychic spells, grav and D weapons? Suddenly 7th isn't a hot mess. GW learned of the magic of errata in 8th, it's no longer something GW needs to be given credit for since it also comes with downsides for new players, which this thread is kind of about.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/16 15:50:01


Post by: Tyel


Not sure it adds much, but takes on TTT's video and their thoughts on possible solutions.

1. I feel having "one" stratagem per army is kind of reductive. By degree you could say you often see this competitively anyway, and if you had a more interesting pool of general stratagems it might work. But one seems kind of... boring. And must almost inevitably warp list building. I am however a big opponent of every special chapter having its own stratagem, because while I think I can see what its meant to do, it often just results in faction locking because you get X+Y+Z which is obviously better than A+B+C. Which is sort of a problem with the chapter tactic system anyway but still.

Undoubtedly a big cull on stratagems would simplify the game.

2. Picking a "deck" of stratagems... yeah, this is just the above but looser. People would all end up with the same handful of stratagems that you generally see in competitive gaming anyway. The game wouldn't be simpler - you'd still go through this learning and curating phase. You'd lose access to those "comes up 1 in 10 games" stratagems... and maybe that's enough. But I don't think this would improve the game.

3. Limits on stratagems. By degree I can sort of see this - i.e. a unit can only be effected by one stratagem a turn or something would put another nail in so-called "wombo combos". I don't hate this - and while it doesn't necesarilly make the game simpler to learn, it might reduce "feels bad" moments as someone breaks out various 3-5 to double a unit's damage output and fly across the table.

4.There's an argument you scrap the stratagems as exist today (but muh rerolls tho). You give each faction say 3-4 powerful faction-defining abilities and you can select one of these a turn. Somehow you'd need to make this a compelling rather than obvious choice - but still. We are effectively abandoning the whole resource side of command points, and it should theoretically be simpler.

5. One warlord? Hmmm... kind of disagree. I feel blinging out characters is good - because the generic characters have become so bland. Obviously this endless expansion of warlord traits and relics is by degree more noise, more book keeping - but equally its fun. I feel the problem is that the CP/Points economy is kind of obvious. It doesn't feel like a choice to bling out your characters - its either an obvious yes or an obvious no.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/16 16:02:31


Post by: catbarf


Tyel wrote:
2. Picking a "deck" of stratagems... yeah, this is just the above but looser. People would all end up with the same handful of stratagems that you generally see in competitive gaming anyway. The game wouldn't be simpler - you'd still go through this learning and curating phase. You'd lose access to those "comes up 1 in 10 games" stratagems... and maybe that's enough. But I don't think this would improve the game.


I think it would tremendously improve the learning experience of facing a new army if they could just hand you the list of six or however many stratagems they've picked, and you could just scan through those and be done with it.

It's effectively a soft cull. All those weird random stratagems can still exist and be options for specific themes or builds (which I think is a good thing), but unless your opponent has specifically chosen them for the current battle, they're not relevant.

It would make it a bit easier to learn your own army as well, since while you still have to learn all your own stratagems to pick, once you've chosen your set you don't need to worry about the rest until after the game. No more 'Oh, I think I have a stratagem for this... [flips through pages]'.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/16 16:04:06


Post by: Daedalus81


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
which may have something to do with why 4th is the edition I'd like to go back to


I don't recall a kit for carapace armor or hellguns.

But uh, 4th so Chaos 3.5? Yea. Do you really want to go into that codex? Chosen who are all sorcerers who automatically pass their psychic test?

Troops that are all terminators with slow and purposeful, and an aspiring that has an automatic minor power of reroll all hits. You may also have to take a leadership test to assault the unit among other things.

There's a reason people liked CSM 3.5 and it wasn't for it's simplicity.



Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/16 16:18:30


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
which may have something to do with why 4th is the edition I'd like to go back to


I don't recall a kit for carapace armor or hellguns.

But uh, 4th so Chaos 3.5? Yea. Do you really want to go into that codex? Chosen who are all sorcerers who automatically pass their psychic test?

Troops that are all terminators with slow and purposeful, and an aspiring that has an automatic minor power of reroll all hits. You may also have to take a leadership test to assault the unit among other things.

There's a reason people liked CSM 3.5 and it wasn't for it's simplicity.


I thought we were talking core rules and game design? 40k has never been balanced codex wise - my claim isn't "4th is the most balanced edition ever!" so arguing against that is just constructing a straw man.

As for the Carapace Armor and Hellguns kit, you must've forgotten these for the first half of 4th edition and these for the second half.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/16 16:23:30


Post by: PenitentJake


Watched the video.

I like their approach to the discussion- they seem reasonable. Not too much there that I haven't already heard from Dakkanauts, And in terms of whether or not agree or disagree, it's pretty much the same.

They didn't speak at all about game size or ways to play, and I think that it's very important to pay attention to those features of 9th in order to have a discussion that makes sense. The quality of this video would have doubled if the first words out of their mouths had been "Today, we're going to talk about whether or not 2k Matched play 40k games are too complex."

I also think that they need to watch their use of the generic, small s supplement. Since capital S Supplements do exist, a bit of attention to diction could facilitate better discourse. Calling a campaign book a campaign book, a supplement a supplement and a mission pack a mission pack is important, even though all of these things do fit the definition of generic, small s supplement.

Had I been involved in the production of the video, I would have edited out the part where the big-bearded guy forgot that 8th began with Indexes- it just undermines the credibility of anything else the guy says.

As for discussing their specific suggestions, like I said, similar enough to stuff discussed elsewhere on Dakka that I don't see the need. You've heard it all before, and you've also heard all my responses already.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/16 16:48:48


Post by: Daedalus81


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I thought we were talking core rules and game design? 40k has never been balanced codex wise - my claim isn't "4th is the most balanced edition ever!" so arguing against that is just constructing a straw man.

As for the Carapace Armor and Hellguns kit, you must've forgotten these for the first half of 4th edition and these for the second half.


Err, well, you were tossing out an example of the Tank Commander, but the core rules of 4th are so far beyond wonky especially compared to 9th - hit and wound charts, scatter, barrages, facings hit from blast templates, your "size" and cover saves granted by terrain, upside-down BS & WS, mixed armor and allocating wounds, etc.

I did forget those kits, thanks. I was a poor boy back then.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/16 17:12:51


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I thought we were talking core rules and game design? 40k has never been balanced codex wise - my claim isn't "4th is the most balanced edition ever!" so arguing against that is just constructing a straw man.

As for the Carapace Armor and Hellguns kit, you must've forgotten these for the first half of 4th edition and these for the second half.


Err, well, you were tossing out an example of the Tank Commander, but the core rules of 4th are so far beyond wonky especially compared to 9th - hit and wound charts, scatter, barrages, facings hit from blast templates, your "size" and cover saves granted by terrain, upside-down BS & WS, mixed armor and allocating wounds, etc.

I did forget those kits, thanks. I was a poor boy back then.


Yeah but the point is they were core rules. Once you had them figured out, you had them figured out.

Plus, there's the intuition factor. The more "realistic* (*within the setting, because this needs to be said)" a rule is, the easier it is to remember.
The WS hit chart was:
If your WS is the same, it's 4+.
If your WS is better, it's 3+, them still 4+.
If you WS is at least twice as good, it's 3+, them 5+.

The wound chart was:
If your S is the same as their T, it's 4+
If your S is higher than their T by 1, it's 3+
If your S is higher than their T by 2 or more, it's it's 2+
If you S is less than their T by 1, it's 5+
If your S is less than their T by 2 or more, it's 6+
If your S is less than half their toughness (rounded up) you can't wound them

This is literally the same number of variables as 9th with the thresholds moved around and only a single (rare in 4th!) entry removed:
If your S is the same as their T, it's 4+
If your S is higher (but not double!) than their T , it's 3+
If your S is equal to or higher than twice their T it's 2+
If you S is less than their T (But more than half!), it's 5+
If your S is equal to or less than half their T, it's 6+

Scatter and blast is intuitive. "Oh, blasts are explosions, which means an AOE, and when they miss, they land somewhere else, determined by d6" plus an arrow" - the arrow literally points the way. Barrages is just "ignore LOS" just like in 9th, though you did have to roll an extra d6 for scatter if you couldn't see the target (omg that's terrible to remember how did anyone cope!11!)

Facings hit from blast templates is just "the facing the firer is in". Oh, blasts where the hole wasn't on the target just hit the armor facing they happened to nick - which is intuitive ("the explosion hits where the explosion template hit"). The only wonky thing is that direct hits from barrage weapons hit Side (to reflect Top armor) which I remember to this day, but fair enough it's not automatically intuitive.

Size and cover is one of the things I would change about 4th to make it a more modern game, I'll grant this was irritating. It wasn't complicated, really, though - just bad. "There are 3 levels of terrain, and 3 sizes of unit. If they match up or if the unit is smaller, blocks LOS"

Mixed armor save rule was just "use the save of the majority of the models in the unit, until they are not the majority anymore". Simple and intuitive, if not altogether a GOOD rule.

Wound allocation was just "defender allocates wounds" except for Torrent of Fire, which means "any wounds that exceed the number of models in the target unit may be allocated by the attacker instead" which is also easy to remember (given that I remember it).



Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/16 17:33:33


Post by: Gert


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah but the point is they were core rules. Once you had them figured out, you had them figured out.

Oh so it's ok if the rules are complex because eventually you'll get it. That's great. What if I never get it?

Plus, there's the intuition factor. The more "realistic* (*within the setting, because this needs to be said)" a rule is, the easier it is to remember.
The WS hit chart was:
If your WS is the same, it's 4+.
If your WS is better, it's 3+, them still 4+.
If you WS is at least twice as good, it's 3+, them 5+.

Now there's no chart and its more simple. I don't have to worry about what my opponent's WS is because I'm still going to hit the same unless they have an ability that makes it harder to hit. Hey BTW, 9th buffs and debuffs can only ever increase or decrease a roll by 1, which means you can always still hit and never get to a point where it is literally impossible to hit something. This means that we can have random fun things like 10 Guardsmen charging a Bloodthirster and by the grace of the God-Emperor, doing 1 damage before being obliterated into mulch. You know, like that really famous example of Ollanius Pious hurting Horus that little bit so the Emperor could kill Horus.

The wound chart was:
If your S is the same as their T, it's 4+
If your S is higher than their T by 1, it's 3+
If your S is higher than their T by 2 or more, it's it's 2+
If you S is less than their T by 1, it's 5+
If your S is less than their T by 2 or more, it's 6+
If your S is less than half their toughness (rounded up) you can't wound them

This is literally the same number of variables as 9th with the thresholds moved around and only a single (rare in 4th!) entry removed:
If your S is the same as their T, it's 4+
If your S is higher (but not double!) than their T , it's 3+
If your S is equal to or higher than twice their T it's 2+
If you S is less than their T (But more than half!), it's 5+
If your S is equal to or less than half their T, it's 6+

Ok, what's the problem here? If the opponent is weaker it's easier to kill them, if they're tougher it's harder.

Scatter and blast is intuitive. "Oh, blasts are explosions, which means an AOE, and when they miss, they land somewhere else, determined by d6" plus an arrow" - the arrow literally points the way. Barrages is just "ignore LOS" just like in 9th, though you did have to roll an extra d6 for scatter if you couldn't see the target (omg that's terrible to remember how did anyone cope!11!)

Facings hit from blast templates is just "the facing the firer is in". Oh, blasts where the hole wasn't on the target just hit the armor facing they happened to nick - which is intuitive ("the explosion hits where the explosion template hit"). The only wonky thing is that direct hits from barrage weapons hit Side (to reflect Top armor) which I remember to this day, but fair enough it's not automatically intuitive.

Blast templates suck. I hate them. It's the one thing I despise about 30k is the Blast templates. It is the most irritating and rage-inducing mechanic, especially against try-hards. "Oh a tiny bit of that model's base is under a sliver of the blast template, let me recount who gets hit because I just noticed that 6 models might be in a similar position". No. Get in the bin. Blasts and how they interact with terrain? Also trash. How my frag rocket can hit models on the hypothetical 8th floor of a building and models on the ground floor, I don't even know.
Their only use was as actual weapons.

Wound allocation was just "defender allocates wounds" except for Torrent of Fire, which means "any wounds that exceed the number of models in the target unit may be allocated by the attacker instead" which is also easy to remember (given that I remember it).

The closest models die is my favourite version of Wound Allocation as long as it also follows the "a model takes wounds until it dies then move onto another model". Allocating wounds to whatever model the owner wanted while keeping a whole deathstar alive sucked.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/16 17:42:53


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I thought we were talking core rules and game design? 40k has never been balanced codex wise - my claim isn't "4th is the most balanced edition ever!" so arguing against that is just constructing a straw man.

As for the Carapace Armor and Hellguns kit, you must've forgotten these for the first half of 4th edition and these for the second half.


Err, well, you were tossing out an example of the Tank Commander, but the core rules of 4th are so far beyond wonky especially compared to 9th - hit and wound charts, scatter, barrages, facings hit from blast templates, your "size" and cover saves granted by terrain, upside-down BS & WS, mixed armor and allocating wounds, etc.

I did forget those kits, thanks. I was a poor boy back then.


There were also no sub-factions outside of some optional variant rules that came with upsides and downsides, no allies or allegiance abilities to keep track of, almost no special rules (USR bloat complaints usually come from 6th/7th, back in 4th there was one page of USRs for the whole game), no auras, almost no re-rolls, only one type of detachment, no CP/stratagems, no relics, no psychic phase, way fewer psykers/psychic powers, no "priests"/prayers, a tenth the number of redundant weapon stats...The core rules may have been bigger and wonkier but the army books were way more straightforward.

As to WS/BS it's only "upside down" by comparison to 8th/9th. In an ideal universe high rolls would be good and high stats would be good because those are more intuitive than saying "no, low stats are good" like in 8th/9th or "no, low rolls are good" like in Infinity, but if you want to actually do that you either need a lookup table (ex. 3rd-7th 40k), to put the roll's target number on the enemy unit rather than on the attacking unit (ex. Battlefleet Gothic), or to implement the whole thing as roll + stat v. target number (ex. Warmachine). Old 40k's approach isn't perfect, no, but I don't think it's any worse than the current "low stats good!" approach; once you get over the initial "ew" reaction and get used to it they're pretty much the same.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/16 18:00:27


Post by: the_scotsman


If the function of a stat is the number i need to roll over on the dice just give me that number as the stat pretty please with a cherry on top do not make me look up what the number means on a table I hate every system that does this with an irrational passion.

High Numbers Good < Displaying The Information To Me In An Instantly Understandable Fashion.

Also just indiciative of the massive shooting bias in the rules structure of 3rd ed-7th ed.

Shooting? Your BS = your hit roll.

melee? Your hit roll is impacted by your opponents' stats as well.

Shooting? You get to shoot all your units uninterrupted at your opponent.

Melee? Your opponent might get to hit you, on your turn, BEFORE you've attacked them! Fun!

Shooting? The strength of your gun is fixed baby!

Melee? The strength of your weapon, which will always cost the same regardless of who's wielding it cus reasons, is dependent on your unit's strength stat! Powerfists at S6 cost the same as powerfists at S8, feth you!

shooting? Deep strike in and GO TO TOWN baby not even a modifier for dropping in from the sky and precisely shooting a gun!

Melee? Don't even THINK about doing ANYTHING until your opponent has had at least a turn to shoot you with their entire army!


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/16 18:14:15


Post by: ccs


 Gert wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah but the point is they were core rules. Once you had them figured out, you had them figured out.

Oh so it's ok if the rules are complex because eventually you'll get it. That's great. What if I never get it?.


You admit this isn't the game for you & you move on to something that is.

Or

You persist in playing anyways, constantly looking up the same rules, making errors, etc.

I mean, how do you handle any other thing in your life where you discover that you lack (and apparently always will lack) the required skill?


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/16 18:43:37


Post by: Hecaton


 Blackie wrote:
Yeah, another thing I can't understand is why some people feel the need to know everything about everything since the beginning.


Because GW's internal balancing is horrible and people don't to waste money on underpowered or unplayable minis.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
ccs wrote:
You admit this isn't the game for you & you move on to something that is.


The thing is, even if you *can* get an encyclopedic knowledge of the rules, you shouldn't, because there are better games out there for that amount of mental effort input.

40k is just lurching along between editions, carried on by its own momentum, and it remains an atrocious game at every step.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/16 18:50:01


Post by: Gert


ccs wrote:

You admit this isn't the game for you & you move on to something that is.

Or

You persist in playing anyways, constantly looking up the same rules, making errors, etc.

I mean, how do you handle any other thing in your life where you discover that you lack (and apparently always will lack) the required skill?

Personally, I think that telling someone to find a new game because they don't get every single rule in the book is just a bit silly really. I still think there are rules interactions in both the 30k and 40k systems that are dumb and that I don't understand, should I just give up and find something else? Or should I just accept that learning every single rule is stupid and a bad expectation of someone?
Telling someone "oh yeah the rules are complex but you'll get them eventually" is a pretty stupid thing to do as well.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/16 19:01:16


Post by: Daedalus81


Hecaton wrote:

Because GW's internal balancing is horrible and people don't to waste money on underpowered or unplayable minis.


I actually find it to be quite good with 9th edition books so far barring a very small handful of too good units ( Raiders, Vahl, some buggies, some Skitari ).


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/16 19:22:45


Post by: dewd11


I started with 7th and 9th seems way easier to me. Looking at older rules, they seem 100x more complicated. Facings, armor values, that weird chart where you compare attacker/defender WS instead of a simple 3+ type system. I can't imagine playing anything before 8th now. Most of the rules are on the datasheets which I always have a .html of on my phone while playing. Combined with the "Stratagems by Phase" section of wahapedia, it's never been simpler to have every rule for every army in my hand while playing. At my FLG I play crusade games with fluffy army lists mostly, so no tournaments for me.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/16 19:38:29


Post by: jeff white


Unit has the goods on this edition imho. Too gamey… as for older editions seeming more complicated, that seems to be for people who like the card gamey whombocombos of the current style of play, and these seem to be people who came from mtg and video games whereas thirty years ago we came from chess and rpgs like advanced d and d… facings, templates, initiative, movements that weren’t random but that were based on race and unit type as one would expect from gams like d and which aimed to create realistic fantasy environments that took advantage of real work experience and intuition. Current iterations of the game are apparently not trying to do that, and seem to appeal to people who want to play games more than forge narratives. Anyways. Not for me…


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/16 19:54:55


Post by: Dysartes


 Gert wrote:
Now there's no chart and its more simple. I don't have to worry about what my opponent's WS is because I'm still going to hit the same unless they have an ability that makes it harder to hit.


Simple =/= good, especially where verisimilitude is concerned.

Imagine, if you will, a Dark Eldar gladatorial arena. Two groups of fighters are presented...

Group A includes an Imperial Guardsman, an Eldar Guardian Defender, a Termagant, and a Fire Warrior. Off the top of my head (and without looking things up, as I'm tired), in 40k pre-8th these were all WS3. They may feature differences in other stats related to H2H, but in terms of basic skill they're on par. We'd imagine they'd each hit each other 50% of the time.

Group B features some slightly tougher opponents - Autarch, Space Marine Captain, Chaos Lord, Hive Tyrant, etc. Without looking the WS up, they're all in roughly the same ballpark, with a much higher WS than Group A. For arguments sake, let's say WS7. Again, Group B hits each other 50% of the time.

If an individual from A fights an individual from B, what we know about them tells us this - A should be outmatched, they should find it tougher to hit their opponent than if they were fighting someone else from group A. Conversely, our combatant from group B should find it much easier to hit our person from group A than if they were fighting someone of comparable skill from group B.

In any edition of 40k up to 8th, this was reflected by the WS chart. In theory, each fighter from A fighting someone from A hits on a 4+; the same is true of someone from B fighting someone from B. If someone from A fights someone from B, A now needs a 5+ to hit, while B is hitting on a 3+ in return. This fits with the expectations that the setting gives us - and, frankly, looking values up on a X vs Y table does not take more than a few seconds.

What we see now is that regardless of whether a grot is fighting a Guardsman, a Genestealer, or Ragnar freakin' Blackmane, they'll hit with the same frequency, regardless of how good we're expected to think their opponents are in H2H. Equally, Ragnar finds it no more difficult to hit Logan Grimnar or Commander Dante in H2H than he does a grot, despite them both being famed H2H fighters. This breaks our understanding of the setting, in the name of maybe saving a few seconds here or there.

As an aside, I'd've liked to see BS opposed by an Evasion stat, rather than be a flat 7-BS roll - if you're not going to compare it to something, then I'm less fussed about switching from a stat to a Y+ representation.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/16 20:07:50


Post by: Daedalus81


Spoiler:
 Dysartes wrote:
 Gert wrote:
Now there's no chart and its more simple. I don't have to worry about what my opponent's WS is because I'm still going to hit the same unless they have an ability that makes it harder to hit.


Simple =/= good, especially where verisimilitude is concerned.

Imagine, if you will, a Dark Eldar gladatorial arena. Two groups of fighters are presented...

Group A includes an Imperial Guardsman, an Eldar Guardian Defender, a Termagant, and a Fire Warrior. Off the top of my head (and without looking things up, as I'm tired), in 40k pre-8th these were all WS3. They may feature differences in other stats related to H2H, but in terms of basic skill they're on par. We'd imagine they'd each hit each other 50% of the time.

Group B features some slightly tougher opponents - Autarch, Space Marine Captain, Chaos Lord, Hive Tyrant, etc. Without looking the WS up, they're all in roughly the same ballpark, with a much higher WS than Group A. For arguments sake, let's say WS7. Again, Group B hits each other 50% of the time.

If an individual from A fights an individual from B, what we know about them tells us this - A should be outmatched, they should find it tougher to hit their opponent than if they were fighting someone else from group A. Conversely, our combatant from group B should find it much easier to hit our person from group A than if they were fighting someone of comparable skill from group B.

In any edition of 40k up to 8th, this was reflected by the WS chart. In theory, each fighter from A fighting someone from A hits on a 4+; the same is true of someone from B fighting someone from B. If someone from A fights someone from B, A now needs a 5+ to hit, while B is hitting on a 3+ in return. This fits with the expectations that the setting gives us - and, frankly, looking values up on a X vs Y table does not take more than a few seconds.

What we see now is that regardless of whether a grot is fighting a Guardsman, a Genestealer, or Ragnar freakin' Blackmane, they'll hit with the same frequency, regardless of how good we're expected to think their opponents are in H2H. Equally, Ragnar finds it no more difficult to hit Logan Grimnar or Commander Dante in H2H than he does a grot, despite them both being famed H2H fighters. This breaks our understanding of the setting, in the name of maybe saving a few seconds here or there.

As an aside, I'd've liked to see BS opposed by an Evasion stat, rather than be a flat 7-BS roll - if you're not going to compare it to something, then I'm less fussed about switching from a stat to a Y+ representation.


I memorized that table quite well. The part you're missing is how difficult it makes balancing units across a huge array of targets. The current system is far preferable in that regard.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/16 20:14:52


Post by: jeff white


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Spoiler:
 Dysartes wrote:
 Gert wrote:
Now there's no chart and its more simple. I don't have to worry about what my opponent's WS is because I'm still going to hit the same unless they have an ability that makes it harder to hit.


Simple =/= good, especially where verisimilitude is concerned.

Imagine, if you will, a Dark Eldar gladatorial arena. Two groups of fighters are presented...

Group A includes an Imperial Guardsman, an Eldar Guardian Defender, a Termagant, and a Fire Warrior. Off the top of my head (and without looking things up, as I'm tired), in 40k pre-8th these were all WS3. They may feature differences in other stats related to H2H, but in terms of basic skill they're on par. We'd imagine they'd each hit each other 50% of the time.

Group B features some slightly tougher opponents - Autarch, Space Marine Captain, Chaos Lord, Hive Tyrant, etc. Without looking the WS up, they're all in roughly the same ballpark, with a much higher WS than Group A. For arguments sake, let's say WS7. Again, Group B hits each other 50% of the time.

If an individual from A fights an individual from B, what we know about them tells us this - A should be outmatched, they should find it tougher to hit their opponent than if they were fighting someone else from group A. Conversely, our combatant from group B should find it much easier to hit our person from group A than if they were fighting someone of comparable skill from group B.

In any edition of 40k up to 8th, this was reflected by the WS chart. In theory, each fighter from A fighting someone from A hits on a 4+; the same is true of someone from B fighting someone from B. If someone from A fights someone from B, A now needs a 5+ to hit, while B is hitting on a 3+ in return. This fits with the expectations that the setting gives us - and, frankly, looking values up on a X vs Y table does not take more than a few seconds.

What we see now is that regardless of whether a grot is fighting a Guardsman, a Genestealer, or Ragnar freakin' Blackmane, they'll hit with the same frequency, regardless of how good we're expected to think their opponents are in H2H. Equally, Ragnar finds it no more difficult to hit Logan Grimnar or Commander Dante in H2H than he does a grot, despite them both being famed H2H fighters. This breaks our understanding of the setting, in the name of maybe saving a few seconds here or there.

As an aside, I'd've liked to see BS opposed by an Evasion stat, rather than be a flat 7-BS roll - if you're not going to compare it to something, then I'm less fussed about switching from a stat to a Y+ representation.


I memorized that table quite well. The part you're missing is how difficult it makes balancing units across a huge array of targets. The current system is far preferable in that regard.

What? Balance against a huge array of targets? Now there is no balance at all… units hit with the same frequency regardless of who or what is on the other side. How is that balanced? I mean, can a single thing balance, against what? It is just shallow… Preferable? For who? Again, it is as if the models are cards with numbers printed on them that tell us what the cards do… o, wait, that is exactly what they are. Why buy models at all? O, of course, to be able to use the cards…


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/16 20:18:14


Post by: Rihgu


Are... are models from older editions not cards with numbers printed on them that tell us what the cards do?

Like, it's hard for me to understand the thought process of reading the stat of WS7 and being like "oh wow, so good! not a card!" and reading the stat of WS2+ and being like "terrible! Disgusting! just a card!"


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/16 20:20:01


Post by: jeff white


No. And, cannot understand? Read again.

Copied from another thread…
The_Real_Chris wrote:
 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.


Note the interest in short games, so there can be more of them I guess… not appealing to me, coming from d and d and chess, either of which might take entire afternoons… I do not come from mtg with the expectation that many card games will be played during a shorter period. And I am attached to my units and feel invested in their on table outcomes, cuz they are my dudes, not chit markers for abstractions.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/16 20:32:45


Post by: Hecaton


 Daedalus81 wrote:
I actually find it to be quite good with 9th edition books so far barring a very small handful of too good units ( Raiders, Vahl, some buggies, some Skitari ).


Your judgment is poor then.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/16 21:02:28


Post by: Mezmorki


Rihgu wrote:
Are... are models from older editions not cards with numbers printed on them that tell us what the cards do?

Like, it's hard for me to understand the thought process of reading the stat of WS7 and being like "oh wow, so good! not a card!" and reading the stat of WS2+ and being like "terrible! Disgusting! just a card!"


Where arguing off into the weeds here, but objectively the old weapon chart poses the player with many different possible dice rolls for both themselves and their opponent depending on the relative differences in skills. Granted, the old chart was limited to hitting on a 3+, 4+ or 5+ (no 2+'s or 6+'s), but the relative difference in WS's made for some very different outcomes. Having WS5 vs WS6 vs WS7+ all translate into tangible differences in die roll outcomes depending on who you're fighting.

Now all of that is effectively 2+ and you need to compensate by having a bajillion re-roll triggers (which takes more time for sure) in order stratify the results further.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/16 21:05:15


Post by: Daedalus81


 jeff white wrote:
What? Balance against a huge array of targets? Now there is no balance at all… units hit with the same frequency regardless of who or what is on the other side. How is that balanced? I mean, can a single thing balance, against what? It is just shallow… Preferable? For who? Again, it is as if the models are cards with numbers printed on them that tell us what the cards do… o, wait, that is exactly what they are. Why buy models at all? O, of course, to be able to use the cards…


Balanced, because you can take Orks against Eldar or Marines or IG and they perform the same. You don't suddenly skew your units, because you wind up facing a different army who also happens to go first, because their strategy rating is higher.

Who is it preferable to when you charge a daemon prince and always fight after it? Or when the basic space marine can't hope to hit it on better than a 5 ( 4s for 5th )? Is it because it makes you feel better to some have somehow "outmaneuvered" your opponent by standing still and taking a charge?

It definitely isn't "selecting cards" when you pick Eldar for their high initiative and bring melee units to overrun your opponent, right?

Excuse the expression, but you think 'your gak don't stink' and you'll happily paint anything else as "cards", but it's a crap argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hecaton wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
I actually find it to be quite good with 9th edition books so far barring a very small handful of too good units ( Raiders, Vahl, some buggies, some Skitari ).


Your judgment is poor then.


As is yours! Woo hoo!


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/16 21:15:12


Post by: drbored


I love how so many posters in here will try to make a counter-argument, but miss the point and the target completely, while also making a wholly different argument.

To list building: If you are a new player getting into the game near the end of an edition (or perhaps, let's say, in the last year of an edition) it is unreasonable for you to know about the HISTORY of the faction rules you're getting into. In the case of Deathwatch, I would say it's reasonable to look at the 8th edition codex and, despite someone saying 'they might get updated in 9th edition', you should be able to make an army that operates the way that fits your playstyle with models you think are cool. Then, if a 9th edition Codex does come out and changes how the army operates so that your army is invalidated in some way, THAT IS A FAILURE OF THE RULES WRITERS, NOT a failure of the customer. Saying it is a failure of the customer for not knowing that their chosen faction has gone through a variety of iterations, each different from the last, is called "victim blaming" and is generally not a great thing to do.

On Complexity and Complication: I know there's a difference between the definition and I can't be arsed to keep them straight, but let's all just get on the same page here: 9th edition is indeed complicated. The question is whether it is more or less complicated than any previous edition, and whether or not that is a failing of the rules writers. In my opinion, having played since 4th edition, 9th edition IS THE MOST COMPLICATED ITERATION ---I--- HAVE PLAYED. I put that in caps to be clear, it may not be the most complicated version YOU have played, and maybe the rules jive with YOU better than they do for ME. Does that mean I'm in some way deficient? That's up to your opinion, but of course, being an ego-driven human being, I'm going to stand my ground and claim that the game developers have created an edition that is too complicated for MY LIKING, and it's very clear that I'm not alone in that opinion. It's a topic that's gotten enough attention that Tabletop Tactics, WintersSEO, and several others have made videos and articles on them, each hoping for some form of change and, generally, a return to ACCESSIBILITY. That is not necessarily to say that the game should become less Complicated, but that it should be MORE ACCESSIBLE to new players than it currently is.

That is my stance when it comes to the Complication of 9th edition. By adding SO many stratagems, army rules, gotcha-moments, and few restrictions on using those things, Matched Play 9th edition is too Complicated and not Accessible enough.

On adding invisible rules to models: There was an example of a Leman Russ having a bunch of extra command points added to it, and another poster immediately came back with "Uh, you've wasted a bunch of command points on a single unit for a single-turn of benefit". Again, you took a shot that was at a totally different target. I believe that's called a "strawman argument" or something, I'm not sure. Either way, the point is that the game is currently RIFE with rules that give invisible benefits to models. In fact, in the current edition, it is very normal for a person to spend 4-5 command points before the game starts to cherry pick a VARIETY of warlord traits and relics to place across their army. In fact, some of the relics and warlord traits can go on models that wouldn't typically be selected to be your Warlord. Invisible traits, auras, weapons, and other options that you can select that aren't represented by a physical change to the model add complication to the game and require EXPLANATION and MEMORIZATION, lest you get caught with your pants down against a weapon that you can't quickly identify. This makes it harder for new players to get into the game, which is what the point was. Saying you 'wasted command points' is a moot point, because we're not talking about tournament play where every decision must be the most efficient possible, we are talking about the majority of games and players, which are typically not concerned with perfect efficiency of command point use. I, as a player, may want to super-charge my Leman Russ with invisible rules, but this also means I have to spend a lot of time before the game even begins explaining to my opponent what those upgrades do, as a GOOD SPORT.

For the longest time, there was a MASSIVE incentive in local gaming clubs, and especially from GW themselves, to follow WYSIWYG. This is harder than ever for many characters that may look like they're carrying a regular chainsword or power sword, but are in fact carrying the BLADE OF FIERY BENEDICTION OF DEATH or somecrap. Add to this rules like 'Chief Apothecary' or 'Chief Librarian' that require you to spend points on models to upgrade them, but are not represented by any bit (or are not required to be represented by any bit) and you have layered rules now that can affect multiple models within your army that, if you are a good sport, require more and more explanation.

These are some of the issues that are making 9th edition Complicated and Inaccessible to players new and old. Like in the Tabletop Tactics video, there were other editions that were complicated, perhaps moreso or less so than currently, but the fact that we jumped from the beginning of 8th, which was a streamlined experience with Indexes, to only one edition later with 9th and we are losing returning players based on the sheer stack of rules that they have to swallow, is just too fast. Perhaps if they added some of the layered rules later on, like in 10th edition or even 11th edition, and gave us a more gradual development of the game, things would be better, but the *complicatening* was exponential, and here we have the failure.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/16 21:33:20


Post by: ccs


 Gert wrote:
ccs wrote:

You admit this isn't the game for you & you move on to something that is.

Or

You persist in playing anyways, constantly looking up the same rules, making errors, etc.

I mean, how do you handle any other thing in your life where you discover that you lack (and apparently always will lack) the required skill?

Personally, I think that telling someone to find a new game because they don't get every single rule in the book is just a bit silly really. I still think there are rules interactions in both the 30k and 40k systems that are dumb and that I don't understand, should I just give up and find something else? Or should I just accept that learning every single rule is stupid and a bad expectation of someone?
Telling someone "oh yeah the rules are complex but you'll get them eventually" is a pretty stupid thing to do as well.


Oh, my bad, you were just bitching about failing to "get" ALL of 40k - the BRB, each campaign suppliment, every codex (wether or not you actually play the army yourself) & every strat WL trait, relic ever printed, etc etc.
I mistook you for wondering about not understanding how to play the actual game.

But this provides an answer as well. If any of you actually think you need to know ALL[i][u] of it? This isn't the game for you.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/16 21:42:09


Post by: Gert


Spoiler:
drbored wrote:
On Complexity and Complication: I know there's a difference between the definition and I can't be arsed to keep them straight, but let's all just get on the same page here: 9th edition is indeed complicated. The question is whether it is more or less complicated than any previous edition, and whether or not that is a failing of the rules writers. In my opinion, having played since 4th edition, 9th edition IS THE MOST COMPLICATED ITERATION ---I--- HAVE PLAYED. I put that in caps to be clear, it may not be the most complicated version YOU have played, and maybe the rules jive with YOU better than they do for ME. Does that mean I'm in some way deficient? That's up to your opinion, but of course, being an ego-driven human being, I'm going to stand my ground and claim that the game developers have created an edition that is too complicated for MY LIKING, and it's very clear that I'm not alone in that opinion. It's a topic that's gotten enough attention that Tabletop Tactics, WintersSEO, and several others have made videos and articles on them, each hoping for some form of change and, generally, a return to ACCESSIBILITY. That is not necessarily to say that the game should become less Complicated, but that it should be MORE ACCESSIBLE to new players than it currently is.

And yet people complained non-stop about how 8th had oversimplified 40k and ruined it by taking away options X, Y, and Z. I'm not saying it's anyone's fault in particular but I think there needs to be some retrospective here when people who complain about 9th being complicated also complained about 8th being too simple.

Spoiler:
That is my stance when it comes to the Complication of 9th edition. By adding SO many stratagems, army rules, gotcha-moments, and few restrictions on using those things, Matched Play 9th edition is too Complicated and not Accessible enough.

I mean every other Edition of 40k has the exact same things though. Stupid powerful unit upgrades, certain broken formations, the ability to spam relics on Characters. People keep acting like 9th is the only Edition where things happen in the game. Does anyone remember T'au firing their entire army in chain overwatches? Or Wraithguard getting Strength D flamers and being troops if you played Iyanden? Or Daemon factories that made games slowed to the point of insanity? 9th is no more broken than any other Edition I've played.

Spoiler:
On adding invisible rules to models: There was an example of a Leman Russ having a bunch of extra command points added to it, and another poster immediately came back with "Uh, you've wasted a bunch of command points on a single unit for a single-turn of benefit". Again, you took a shot that was at a totally different target. I believe that's called a "strawman argument" or something, I'm not sure. Either way, the point is that the game is currently RIFE with rules that give invisible benefits to models. In fact, in the current edition, it is very normal for a person to spend 4-5 command points before the game starts to cherry pick a VARIETY of warlord traits and relics to place across their army. In fact, some of the relics and warlord traits can go on models that wouldn't typically be selected to be your Warlord. Invisible traits, auras, weapons, and other options that you can select that aren't represented by a physical change to the model add complication to the game and require EXPLANATION and MEMORIZATION, lest you get caught with your pants down against a weapon that you can't quickly identify. This makes it harder for new players to get into the game, which is what the point was. Saying you 'wasted command points' is a moot point, because we're not talking about tournament play where every decision must be the most efficient possible, we are talking about the majority of games and players, which are typically not concerned with perfect efficiency of command point use. I, as a player, may want to super-charge my Leman Russ with invisible rules, but this also means I have to spend a lot of time before the game even begins explaining to my opponent what those upgrades do, as a GOOD SPORT.

Hi yeah, that was me responding to Unit. There was more than one point I made in that specific post and I'm disappointed to see you focussed on one, the shortest one might I add. Anyway onto you.
Have you got any evidence to support the claim that it's "normal" to spend 1/3 of your CP before the game begins?
As for invisible options, you do know that any relics/warlord traits/psychic powers are supposed to be recorded right? And that hiding such information from your opponent is cheating/bad sportsmanship?
And sorry, you have to spend "a lot of time explaining" that you're choosing to use 4 different Strategems on a single unit? That's literally your fault for doing that. You chose to put 4 Strategems on that unit, the game didn't force you to. If you can't effectively communicate then that is very much a you problem.

There's way too much rage post in this to answer it properly but the last thing I'm going to say is that you have the Codex in front of you. You don't need to memorise every single rule because they are literally in front of your face. It really doesn't take long to say "I'm using Vengeance of Lost Cadia which gives me rerolls to wound against Chaos stuff". Hell, this would even be shorter to say because you're only going to use that Strategem against a Chaos army anyway, so it would more like "I'm using this Strat that gives me rerolls to wound against your army".


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/16 21:43:53


Post by: Galas


9th has become too convulated for his own good that cannot be argueed agaisnt.

But as an outsider I cannot really see how older editions were better in that regard. Go read old battle reports, or lists, or tacticas. They were full of usin psychic powers, special characters, this regimental doctrine or that chapter tactic, or using this relic to make your demon prince have a lash that can move my models and cannot be targeted and this and that magical object that has this special effect.

People is kidding themselves if anybody believes that at any point in his story warhammer competitive was about basic units with their basic profiles. It has always been about combos. Now, the combos are just more obvious for everybody, specially with the ease of access to internet and netlisting. Stratagems are the only thing thats 100% "new stuff". Everything else, psychic powers, special rules, subfaction rules, warlord traits, relics, have always existed in the same capacity or even worse.

For example I can understand much better 8th and 9th lists and how they play because I have played those editions 100 times more than older editions where I cannot by the love of my remember the differente between 5 USR that are basically the same but no (I have the same problem with Infinity, I hate USR in datasheets that reference other books or pages. Just give me the rules in the unit entry damm you!). And I believe thats the problem many people have here.

As someone without a horse here, I believe you are all being extremely dishonest.

Warhammer 40k has always been a extremely complicated mess with a shallow gameplay. I mean I like it but thats the truth. And I , right now, prefer going back to older edition and playing with friends in a friendly manner but back in the day (i was more of a fantasy player) I remember the excruciating experience that was playing in a warhammer tournament. Nobody knew how most rules played, the amount of bickering and arguing and bad faith was insane. At least all of that was removed with 8th and thats the thing that actually kept me engaged this time.

In all of my tournaments of 8th and 9th (And I have attended dozens of them, from 12 little man store tournaments to 100-200 players one) I have yet to see a serious rule argument. In older editions you could not have a friendly game without one, for lack of faqs, or clarity, or how badly worded many rules were.

EDIT: Actually, going for stratagems, 9th has been better in that regard with 8th. You have less combos, many stratagems are only usable for a unit so they are more of special rules with cost attached, etc... The gameplay is the same, better, but the same, so if you don't like stratagems from 8th you wont like them in 9th, but thats not something that has gotten worse.

My biggest problem with warhammer and my enjoyemend for it right now is the lethality of the game. Something I like about LOTR is that when two shieldwalls clash, they keep going for turn after turn. Normally you have breachs in some places and it becomes a game of pushing were your opponent is weaker or trying to out manouver it while your shieldwall endures. Of course you have games that become blood baths because Morgoth was thirsty and your or yours opponent (or both!) had hot dice but they are the minority and always extremely fun.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/16 21:47:43


Post by: Gert


ccs wrote:
Oh, my bad, you were just bitching about failing to "get" ALL of 40k - the BRB, each campaign suppliment, every codex (wether or not you actually play the army yourself) & every strat WL trait, relic ever printed, etc etc.
I mistook you for wondering about not understanding how to play the actual game.

First of all, excuse you. I don't recall using crass language with you so I'd expect the same in return.
Second of all, Unit was complaining about Relics and Strategems, as well as wargear identification, then suddenly we're talking about core rules with a stupid statement of
 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Yeah but the point is they were core rules. Once you had them figured out, you had them figured out.

What exactly does that even mean?

But this provides an answer as well. If any of you actually think you need to know ALL[i][u] of it? This isn't the game for you.

Show me where I said that. In any of my posts.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/16 22:20:59


Post by: drbored


 Gert wrote:
There's way too much rage post in this to answer it properly but the last thing I'm going to say is that you have the Codex in front of you. You don't need to memorise every single rule because they are literally in front of your face. It really doesn't take long to say "I'm using Vengeance of Lost Cadia which gives me rerolls to wound against Chaos stuff". Hell, this would even be shorter to say because you're only going to use that Strategem against a Chaos army anyway, so it would more like "I'm using this Strat that gives me rerolls to wound against your army".


There's no rage in my post whatsoever, that's just you projecting. I'm trying to get to the heart of a few of the issues, but you seem more intent on blaming others for perceived shortcomings rather than addressing the issues with the game.

In other words, if I say "I wish the sky wasn't so grey today" your response would be "just close your eyes so you don't look at it". It doesn't address the issue: the sky sure is gray, you're just deflecting to try to avoid tackling the real issue: the sky is gray. Now, we can't really do a whole heck of a lot to address a gray sky, and there's likely not a lot we can really do to address troublesome game development on GW's side. Similarly, it's clear I can't change your mind on any of the above topics, and so I won't try.

What I will say is that once again you take a shot and miss the target completely. "Invisible", I thought I made pretty clear, is stuff that's not represented on the model. Of course it should be written on your list, but words on paper =/= bits on models, and that's part of the issue. You also go on and on about how long or short it takes to say x or y, but the fact of the matter is that it takes a lot longer to say those things and establish those clarifications ahead of time than just... putting your models on the table, which is what the previous poster, Unit, was trying to get at.

Either way, we seem to be at an impasse and I think my points have been made and we simply don't see eye to eye. I will say that you won't do yourself any favor by shifting the blame away from critical analysis of the game system and onto people that genuinely feel like there are a feth-ton of rules to absorb for this edition.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/16 22:37:03


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Gert wrote:
...There's way too much rage post in this to answer it properly but the last thing I'm going to say is that you have the Codex in front of you. You don't need to memorise every single rule because they are literally in front of your face. It really doesn't take long to say "I'm using Vengeance of Lost Cadia which gives me rerolls to wound against Chaos stuff". Hell, this would even be shorter to say because you're only going to use that Strategem against a Chaos army anyway, so it would more like "I'm using this Strat that gives me rerolls to wound against your army".


And if you're playing 7th you have the rulebook in front of you. You don't need to memorize every single rule because they are literally in front of your face. What's your point?


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/16 22:40:17


Post by: Tawnis


BrianDavion wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Tawnis wrote:
...While your complaints about 9th are certainly valid, this seems just as much an issue with the people in your community being meta chasing win at all cost nobheads.


I one hundred percent accept that the people I play with are all dicks, which is a big part of me not playing 9th. That said I get the exact same lectures here on Dakka as I do in person from those guys when I make the same observations, which leads me to think that it could be a broader problem.


complaining about a lack of internal balance in a codex and claiming "it's worse then ever": though is a straight up LIE when you're discussing a 8th edition codex. NO ONE denies that 8th edition had internal balance issues (so did 5th 6th and 7th) the actual armies with 9th edition codices however have very good internal balance. it's not perfect but it's definatly better then it's been in ages.

quit bitching about 9th edition being the problem when the real problem is you're using a 8th edition codex that wasn't very good in 8th and thus isn't going to magicly be any better with a simple edition change


Not everyone collects or wants to collect every army. Many people aren't going to just jump ship on an army they have spent decades collecting just because they aren't the hot new things anymore. Leaving old codexes with no updates at all is hurting a lot of these players. I'm not saying that codex's should be pumped out faster, but GW plans their releases years in advance, if they knew last year that things like Tau, CSM, GSC, ect, weren't getting a codex for a long time, putting out something small to give them a little boost would have created a lot of good will. For example a simple CSMs are now +1 wound (and maybe some minor points tweaks) would have been an easy solution to this problem. But then, they might make less money on the new codex sales when they finally come out...

I like 9th, and I certainly don't think that balance is "worse than ever" HOWEVER, there are certain armies (and by extension people who play those armies) that have received the short end of the stick for a VERY long time at this point when GW could have easily done something about it.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/16 22:42:09


Post by: BrianDavion


 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Gert wrote:
...There's way too much rage post in this to answer it properly but the last thing I'm going to say is that you have the Codex in front of you. You don't need to memorise every single rule because they are literally in front of your face. It really doesn't take long to say "I'm using Vengeance of Lost Cadia which gives me rerolls to wound against Chaos stuff". Hell, this would even be shorter to say because you're only going to use that Strategem against a Chaos army anyway, so it would more like "I'm using this Strat that gives me rerolls to wound against your army".


And if you're playing 7th you have the rulebook in front of you. You don't need to memorize every single rule because they are literally in front of your face. What's your point?


worst thing about 7th edition for me was the USRs that granted USRs.

"this unit has the AWESOME USR... hmm I wonder what that does, I'll look up awesome.. hmm Awesome gives the Gnarly and Cool USRs.... ok *flip flip* gnarly gives the amazing and specactular USRs.. *sigh flip flip* ok so thats what those are... now whats cool give... *flip flip* cool gives ... 3 differant USRs that I have to look up? ohh for god's sake!"

I mean for ease of referance they should have just c&p'd the text from the combined USRs and put them in, minimize searching.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/16 22:49:19


Post by: AnomanderRake


BrianDavion wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Gert wrote:
...There's way too much rage post in this to answer it properly but the last thing I'm going to say is that you have the Codex in front of you. You don't need to memorise every single rule because they are literally in front of your face. It really doesn't take long to say "I'm using Vengeance of Lost Cadia which gives me rerolls to wound against Chaos stuff". Hell, this would even be shorter to say because you're only going to use that Strategem against a Chaos army anyway, so it would more like "I'm using this Strat that gives me rerolls to wound against your army".


And if you're playing 7th you have the rulebook in front of you. You don't need to memorize every single rule because they are literally in front of your face. What's your point?


worst thing about 7th edition for me was the USRs that granted USRs.

"this unit has the AWESOME USR... hmm I wonder what that does, I'll look up awesome.. hmm Awesome gives the Gnarly and Cool USRs.... ok *flip flip* gnarly gives the amazing and specactular USRs.. *sigh flip flip* ok so thats what those are... now whats cool give... *flip flip* cool gives ... 3 differant USRs that I have to look up? ohh for god's sake!"

I mean for ease of referance they should have just c&p'd the text from the combined USRs and put them in, minimize searching.


7th was bloated and unwieldy. 9th is bloated and unwieldy. They just moved the bloat into the Codexes on the assumption that all the people screaming "no USRs are evil!" would come back and say "hey, no USRs, much easier to play!" independent of whether the game's in any way easier to play.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/16 23:31:44


Post by: dadx6


 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Tawnis wrote:
...While your complaints about 9th are certainly valid, this seems just as much an issue with the people in your community being meta chasing win at all cost nobheads.


I one hundred percent accept that the people I play with are all dicks, which is a big part of me not playing 9th. That said I get the exact same lectures here on Dakka as I do in person from those guys when I make the same observations, which leads me to think that it could be a broader problem.


I literally just logged in for the first time in 4 months so I could tell you that you hit the nail on the head with this comment.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/17 00:02:20


Post by: Lammia


My thoughts on moving bloat. I only need 1 book


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/17 00:06:46


Post by: catbarf


Galas wrote:People is kidding themselves if anybody believes that at any point in his story warhammer competitive was about basic units with their basic profiles. It has always been about combos. Now, the combos are just more obvious for everybody, specially with the ease of access to internet and netlisting. Stratagems are the only thing thats 100% "new stuff". Everything else, psychic powers, special rules, subfaction rules, warlord traits, relics, have always existed in the same capacity or even worse.


That's... completely wrong.

In 5th Ed my Tyranid and Imperial Guard lists had no subfaction rules, no warlord traits, no relics, no purity bonus, only a handful of psychic powers treated as simple abilities (like shooting attacks) rather than having their own phase and bespoke mechanics for resolution, and far, far FAR fewer special rules.

And no stratagems.

Like, did you only just start playing in 7th or something? Because that's about the only way I can imagine you could perceive that there's no more bloat than there was in 3rd-5th.

Gert wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Yeah but the point is they were core rules. Once you had them figured out, you had them figured out.

What exactly does that even mean?


When you finally figure out all the stratagems, WLTs, relics, special abilities, and other wombo-combo elements to understand an opponent's army in 9th, you face someone else and suddenly none of that applies.

Once you understand the core rules in 3rd-5th, you understand the game, and then understanding a new codex takes all of fifteen minutes. Everyone's running on the same core set of rules and the same USRs, with only a handful of army-wide special-rules.

The core rules are more complex, but that's really all you have to learn. Offloading the complexity to the codices means layer upon layer of codex-specific interweaving mechanics and combos to untangle.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/17 00:53:11


Post by: Stormonu


 Dysartes wrote:
 Gert wrote:
Now there's no chart and its more simple. I don't have to worry about what my opponent's WS is because I'm still going to hit the same unless they have an ability that makes it harder to hit.


Simple =/= good, especially where verisimilitude is concerned.

Imagine, if you will, a Dark Eldar gladatorial arena. Two groups of fighters are presented...

Group A includes an Imperial Guardsman, an Eldar Guardian Defender, a Termagant, and a Fire Warrior. Off the top of my head (and without looking things up, as I'm tired), in 40k pre-8th these were all WS3. They may feature differences in other stats related to H2H, but in terms of basic skill they're on par. We'd imagine they'd each hit each other 50% of the time.

Group B features some slightly tougher opponents - Autarch, Space Marine Captain, Chaos Lord, Hive Tyrant, etc. Without looking the WS up, they're all in roughly the same ballpark, with a much higher WS than Group A. For arguments sake, let's say WS7. Again, Group B hits each other 50% of the time.

If an individual from A fights an individual from B, what we know about them tells us this - A should be outmatched, they should find it tougher to hit their opponent than if they were fighting someone else from group A. Conversely, our combatant from group B should find it much easier to hit our person from group A than if they were fighting someone of comparable skill from group B.

In any edition of 40k up to 8th, this was reflected by the WS chart. In theory, each fighter from A fighting someone from A hits on a 4+; the same is true of someone from B fighting someone from B. If someone from A fights someone from B, A now needs a 5+ to hit, while B is hitting on a 3+ in return. This fits with the expectations that the setting gives us - and, frankly, looking values up on a X vs Y table does not take more than a few seconds.

What we see now is that regardless of whether a grot is fighting a Guardsman, a Genestealer, or Ragnar freakin' Blackmane, they'll hit with the same frequency, regardless of how good we're expected to think their opponents are in H2H. Equally, Ragnar finds it no more difficult to hit Logan Grimnar or Commander Dante in H2H than he does a grot, despite them both being famed H2H fighters. This breaks our understanding of the setting, in the name of maybe saving a few seconds here or there.

As an aside, I'd've liked to see BS opposed by an Evasion stat, rather than be a flat 7-BS roll - if you're not going to compare it to something, then I'm less fussed about switching from a stat to a Y+ representation.


8E & 9E shifted it from the chance of landing a hit, to the number of attacks you make and whether the hit is effective. Before, units hit on different numbers based on cross-referencing effectiveness. Now, instead the model hits on the same number, but the number of attacks they make, how resistance they are to the attack, and how many of those attacks have to succeed determine things. The percentages are still there, but except in the case of the Toughness stat, there's no table cross referencing - now you're left just looking up multiple stat lines and marking wounds. I don't think it's a better system because you're further into the chain before something stops you from rolling dice/consulting stats. Instead of stopping at the hit roll, you're also rolling Toughness, maybe armor or invulerable, maybe FNP, and then maybe tracking wounds.

I do like how Bolt Action handles things - Inexperienced troops are hit on 3+. Standard troops are hit on a 4+. Veterans are hit on a 5+. Inexperienced troops fire at -1, Vets at +1. Similar to the table method, but easier to memorize without half a dozen numbers involved.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/17 01:36:12


Post by: Daedalus81


 catbarf wrote:

Once you understand the core rules in 3rd-5th, you understand the game, and then understanding a new codex takes all of fifteen minutes. Everyone's running on the same core set of rules and the same USRs, with only a handful of army-wide special-rules.


First, 9th is bloated, yes.

Second, this statement is far too oversimplified. It takes forever to understand old codexes. Mostly by the way they were laid out, but at times exacerbated by USRs spread out. Almost no one could play old editions without the BRB. I haven't picked mine up in 9th in forever. So much so that I don't think I'd worry about owning a physical copy in the future.

And while 9th has a lot of rules they're not confusing - there's just a gakload of them. But they simply take the system as it is an increase some aspect. You either affect dice rolls by bonuses or rerolls, break the limits of the rules you already understand, or mortal wounds.

Here's the DE strats:

Break (rule), dice, dice, break, dice, break, dice, break, break, dice, break, break, break, mw, dice, break, mw, break, break, dice, mw, mw, break.

Granted this is really reductive, however, even with all of these options the opposing player isn't necessarily going to spend 1 CP to use Shock Prow. Why should I worry if they might use it? How is it much different from my opponent rolling hot and me rolling cold? It's just extra damage. The same goes for dice abilities. People use transhuman and then I could roll all 4+ anyway.

These are calculated gambles attempting to find footing to push the odds into one player's favor.

Where it gets fuzzy are the rule breakers. Of the 12 "break" strats you have two that give WL traits and one that gives relics. One that gives fallback and charge/shoot ( common ), move after shooting ( no charge ), deepstrike, deepstrike again, power from pain at round 5, remove from field into reserves, disembark from reserves, doubled drugs, max advance, poison affects vehicles.

You'll notice several of these are incredibly common - traits, relics, deepstrike, go back into reserves, fallback and do stuff, etc. Even the disembark from reserves is basically deepstrike since they have to be 9" away. Doubled drugs is a lot like dice mods, but if a unit has two drugs that's when you learn to watch it for hyperstimm.

The idea is that even strats follow a basic rule logic - at least new ones in 9th. If anything grants an out of phase move you can bet there will be no charging. If there's a deepstrike it will likely be 9" unless it's GSC, but even then it is a trade-off ( and really expensive ).



Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/17 03:04:23


Post by: Galas


 catbarf wrote:
Galas wrote:People is kidding themselves if anybody believes that at any point in his story warhammer competitive was about basic units with their basic profiles. It has always been about combos. Now, the combos are just more obvious for everybody, specially with the ease of access to internet and netlisting. Stratagems are the only thing thats 100% "new stuff". Everything else, psychic powers, special rules, subfaction rules, warlord traits, relics, have always existed in the same capacity or even worse.


That's... completely wrong.

In 5th Ed my Tyranid and Imperial Guard lists had no subfaction rules, no warlord traits, no relics, no purity bonus, only a handful of psychic powers treated as simple abilities (like shooting attacks) rather than having their own phase and bespoke mechanics for resolution, and far, far FAR fewer special rules.

And no stratagems.

Like, did you only just start playing in 7th or something? Because that's about the only way I can imagine you could perceive that there's no more bloat than there was in 3rd-5th.


What where regimental doctrines then, custom build your chaos warband, chapter tactic, IG regiment? What were special equipement/demonic blessings/whatever if not relics? The amount of rules bloat in relation to those editions is in general caused by the fact that now you have many more factions and units.


And I'll be honest with you. I prefer the way things were done in those days. If only we had those editions right now with the present release schedule, actual faqs and balance changes that fix things, etc... it would be glorious. But the truth is, warhammer, as it is right now, even with all the special rules people likes to repeat and repeat is easier to understand and play for a completely new player than trying to teach anyone older editions.

The game is just much more clear from the ground up. And even if they are bloat, the number of rules any given army has are relatively easy to understand. I know I know, half a dozen people will come and write down all the rules interaction for any given combo that needs 5 units and 2 powers and 2 CA and one FW supplement to do.


I have to say that one of the reasons people feel understanding old editions was easier was also because GW didn't put out so much content. When you had 2 codex a year with 0 extra material outside late 7th supplement spam, of course the game was easier to understand, and memorice. When your army had a codex for 7 years of course you'll end up learning it. But I don't believe that was better as much as people really, really like to say how they prefer it the old way.

TLR: Yes, there are mathematically more rules right now. Also, they are explained in a more clear and concise way, and are stacked in a more sensible form, so they outside some outliers like Admech are clear to understand. I understand people that does not like wombo-combos but those have always existed. Just ask for what kind of lists and characters and units people did with the 3.5 chaos codex.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/17 03:31:22


Post by: catbarf


 Galas wrote:
What where regimental doctrines then, custom build your chaos warband, chapter tactic, IG regiment?


Not present in every edition (eg completely absent in 5th), and not tied to warlord traits, relics, and stratagems that could open up additional combos beyond the raw army-wide traits.

At the start of the game I could tell you that I took a doctrine that lets me re-roll 1s when I stand still and that's it. It wasn't also tied to a host of other abilities that could fundamentally alter how my army plays or catch you in a gotcha if I don't remind you of its existence. You never got caught out in 4th Ed by a squad of Catachan Guardsmen with Straken and a Priest throwing out 60 attacks in one turn.

 Galas wrote:
What were special equipement/demonic blessings/whatever if not relics?


I genuinely don't know what you're talking about. Is the fact that I could give my company commander a bolt pistol somehow equivalent to bespoke relics that allow me to do ridiculous things like 10-damage attacks (see: Reaper of Obliterax)?

At the very least, if I took a bolt pistol it was expected that there would be a bolt pistol on the model and it merely represented a bolt pistol. Now it might be a bolt pistol or it might be a +4 Bolt Pistol of Sundering that one-shots Primaris and it's another thing I have to tell you and you have to remember.

 Galas wrote:
The amount of rules bloat in relation to those editions is in general caused by the fact that now you have many more factions and units.


No, it's on top of that. You have more factions, more units, way more equipment (including subdividing equipment that used to be homogeneous- hello, three different kinds of power weapon), more time-based abilities (Don't forget next turn Power From Pain will give me blah blah), more faction purity bonuses, subfactions for every army, and that's not even getting into stratagems, let alone how reasonably-straightforward USRs have been replaced with a multitude of bespoke and subtly different implementations of the same concepts.

The core gameplay may be simpler, but the sheer number of layers of options, complexities, synergies, buffs, and abilities conferred by each codex more than offset the gain. More importantly, the presentation makes it unintuitive and clumsy to learn- Wahapedia's formatting to show relevant weapons and stratagems on the same page as a unit entry is an absolute godsend.

Warmachine has a similar focus on combos and synergies, but the way it puts all the relevant content directly on the unit cards rather than somewhere in ten pages of 'wait I think I have a thing for this, hold on' is easier to grasp on the table. Every interaction you're facing in a given battle is right there, on the table, laid out for you to observe. GW could certainly improve the presentation of their rules, but there's a major design philosophy difference between a game that draws its emergent complexity from the traits of units on the table and one that draws it from an amalgam of units on the table, army-wide abilities, a collection of special powers, a separate wargear table, subfactions, and intangible wargear and character traits.

Put simply: GW needs to remember why WYSIWYG exists. It's so that you can look at a model and know exactly what it is and what it does without needing to remember or ask. So many vitally important elements of gameplay in 9th Ed are abstract and off-board, adding to the cognitive burden of a game that could use better reference material to begin with.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/17 07:03:00


Post by: Blackie


 Sim-Life wrote:


So we're back to "just buy better models"?


No, that's the opposite of what I said. We're back to "buy the models you like, avoid skew and play with 50-75% of your collection, or less". If you collect a well rounded force you should be good forever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 kodos wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
Someone that starts should aim at 1000 points games probably for years

a new Edition every 3 years and a new Codex within each new Edition, starting with a 1000 point games now (with the Edition being 1 year old, and the faction you want has no new Codex), you need 2000 points worth of models within a year to be save to have enough your new Codex or a new Edition changes things (or even CA might change points and you need 1-2 different units within half a year)

you needed 5 years to collect you 4k army how many different Editions and Codex have you seen during that 5 years?

now you need to collect those 4k within half the time to be save because otherwise you might end up with those problems

hence why people want everything now, because small amounts over a long period now means "within a year"



There's no need to buy all the books, just the basic ones: Rulebook + Codex. If you're in a group of friends even a single shared Rulebook will do. For points costs just look at the free battlescribe.

4k armies, if they are well rounded, last forever. Even smaller ones, like 3k, at least for some armies. I can play 9th with what I had in 5th edition and still be ok for casual games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hecaton wrote:


Because GW's internal balancing is horrible and people don't to waste money on underpowered or unplayable minis.



We disagree about internal balancing in 9th edition. I think that 90%+ of the units in 9th codexes are at least playable.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/17 07:43:15


Post by: Gir Spirit Bane


Honestly, make a unit can only be effected by ONE stratagem a phase will make the game much less feels bad when you super power a unit via strats and makes balancing a nightmare.



Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/17 09:30:05


Post by: H.B.M.C.


When I think of the layered rules and strats and other nonsense in 40k, I just keep coming back to this and this. Yeah, they're CCG related, but even so... we're edging ever closer.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/17 09:51:59


Post by: vipoid


 Gir Spirit Bane wrote:
Honestly, make a unit can only be effected by ONE stratagem a phase will make the game much less feels bad when you super power a unit via strats and makes balancing a nightmare.


I'm still unclear as to why 40k needed (or needs) Stratagems in the first place. It seems almost all of them fall into one of the following categories:
- Stuff that should just be wargear and/or paid for with points.
- Stuff that should just be unit abilities.
- Stuff that shouldn't exist (shoot twice, fight twice or other flat bonuses like +1 to hit/wound, rerolls to hit/wound that add 0 tactical or strategic depth).
- Stuff that exists only to pad out the number of Stratagems ("Dark Tidings of the Fell Moon (2CP) - Use this Stratagem when your opponent's unit Advances its maximum distance on a Tuesday when your opponent is also wearing a blue hat. Roll 3 dice and inflict 1 Mortal Wound on the Advancing enemy unit for each 6 rolled. If your opponent's socks don't match, you may roll 1 additional dice.")

Maybe you'd have a few stratagems left after that but I'm not convinced they'd make the mechanic worth saving.


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
When I think of the layered rules and strats and other nonsense in 40k, I just keep coming back to this and this. Yeah, they're CCG related, but even so... we're edging ever closer.




I'll be honest, when I saw the first link, I wondered whether the second one would be this.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/17 17:26:21


Post by: Sim-Life


 vipoid wrote:
 Gir Spirit Bane wrote:
Honestly, make a unit can only be effected by ONE stratagem a phase will make the game much less feels bad when you super power a unit via strats and makes balancing a nightmare.


I'm still unclear as to why 40k needed (or needs) Stratagems in the first place. It seems almost all of them fall into one of the following categories:
- Stuff that should just be wargear and/or paid for with points.
- Stuff that should just be unit abilities.
- Stuff that shouldn't exist (shoot twice, fight twice or other flat bonuses like +1 to hit/wound, rerolls to hit/wound that add 0 tactical or strategic depth).
- Stuff that exists only to pad out the number of Stratagems ("Dark Tidings of the Fell Moon (2CP) - Use this Stratagem when your opponent's unit Advances its maximum distance on a Tuesday when your opponent is also wearing a blue hat. Roll 3 dice and inflict 1 Mortal Wound on the Advancing enemy unit for each 6 rolled. If your opponent's socks don't match, you may roll 1 additional dice.")

Maybe you'd have a few stratagems left after that but I'm not convinced they'd make the mechanic worth saving.



I feel like a lot of the intention behind 8th/9ths methods for how they laid out the rules was to have a granularity to the rules, so that when it came time they could easily adjust individual rules without effecting the wider game. In theory it's a good idea because if two different units have the same basic rule (let's say Fight Twice ability) and it makes one unit OP but not the other then you can nerf one unit while the other is unaffected. Unfortunately GW has no interest in making such minor tweaks and would rather just make you buy a whole new edition/codex and only nerf the REALLY broken units, rather than raise up under-powered ones.


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


So we're back to "just buy better models"?


No, that's the opposite of what I said. We're back to "buy the models you like, avoid skew and play with 50-75% of your collection, or less". If you collect a well rounded force you should be good forever.



I have a well rounded Tyranids army (about 8k pts I think). It sucks. My necrons (around 4k?) are also well rounded and REALLY suck,


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/17 19:52:19


Post by: blaktoof


The first Xenos book for any edition had always been a sacrifice to the gods. First SM book usually as well, the difference being SM will get 1-2 updates within that edition and that Xenos book will not.

This is to the above about Necrons sucking.

My long term advice if you ha e a Xenos army, if they are the first release for that edition play them like crazy for the first few codexes then realize they are a just for fun army the rest of the edition.

GW often changes direction somehow in their concept for the game and how powerful factions should be early in each edition.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/17 20:17:34


Post by: Niiai


 Peakab00 wrote:
Got back into playing 40k After 15 years away, I thought Id start with ORKS - Remembering them being a fairly easy race to pick-up, problem being they is only one real tactic with them and that's "rush" everything forward and close, and see how it pans out, So new Codex brought - absolute mind scramble! The rule changes and stratagems I cannot recall 40k being this complex several releases ago. absolute mountain of information to process almost takes the fun out of it?

How is anyone realistically supposed to know all the potential stats, relics, customs, special rules involved in an army? I'm finding this is almost taken the just play/have fun element out of game, any finding all the rules involved almost too much to learn ? Also creating an army list seems way more complex than I can previously remember. How can I simplify all this ?


Quite a lot of blote was alreayd in 5th edition with a huge amount of rules. That came out of 4th edition where there also where many rules as far as I could tell. (I played one game of 4th edition and several game sin 2nd edition.) 6th edition added more bloat on terain rules and introduced a lot of flyers and a crazy psykick phase. 7th edition was more of that I think.

8th edition tuned down the rule sbloat with resulted in a huge amount of FAQ. 9th edition is a more fun (more balanced, better objectives) then 8th edition.

Yes there are a lot of rules to know. The most anoyig part is that none of the rules are stapeled upon the models. Like say a cardgame.

However, you will soon get into it. As an ork player you should just put in the heat and play agresivly. That is what my regular opponent did in 8th edition.

Stratagems are not that comples. Some are there and you rarly use them (desperet break out.) Some you runn into 24/7 like transhuman. (Space marine can not be wounded on better then 4+.) As an Ork you chould just focus on the few stratagems that you end up using. (Tyranids have a good use of all their stratagems, witch makes playing them a nightmare to remember all.)

Just grab some boyz or beats snagga boyz. Grab a psyker with da jump. Move up the field.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/17 20:20:25


Post by: the_scotsman


 jeff white wrote:
Unit has the goods on this edition imho. Too gamey… as for older editions seeming more complicated, that seems to be for people who like the card gamey whombocombos of the current style of play, and these seem to be people who came from mtg and video games whereas thirty years ago we came from chess and rpgs like advanced d and d… facings, templates, initiative, movements that weren’t random but that were based on race and unit type as one would expect from gams like d and which aimed to create realistic fantasy environments that took advantage of real work experience and intuition. Current iterations of the game are apparently not trying to do that, and seem to appeal to people who want to play games more than forge narratives. Anyways. Not for me…


Good lord this is possibly the funniest humblebrag I've ever seen on this site "We came from chess" I love it.

The thing that's changed about the game since the early days is primarily the simulationist aspects - the style of play where you put your models down on the table and use the rules as a means 'to see what happens'. Zany tables, damage charts, and rules like the old AP system, penetration system and Instant Death are there to create a few big, unpredictable, exciting moments, while the 8th/9th paradigm trends much more towards average performance and outcomes tend to be more predictable. When I shoot a bunch of flat 3 damage rokkits at something, and my opponent has to roll 5 5+ saves or die, that's a lot more predictable than "and now I roll on the damage table where I have a 1 in 6 chance of instantly ka-blooeying you and a 1 in 6 chance of barely inconveniencing you at all"

The game is far more like Chess now than older editions ever were, and that's probably one of the reasons I'm dissatisfied, because I LIVE for the moments when Pawn makes his armor save and unexpectedly swings back and kills Rook.

feth chess. Just my opinion, moving on.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/17 20:32:48


Post by: jeff white


 the_scotsman wrote:
Spoiler:
 jeff white wrote:
Unit has the goods on this edition imho. Too gamey… as for older editions seeming more complicated, that seems to be for people who like the card gamey whombocombos of the current style of play, and these seem to be people who came from mtg and video games whereas thirty years ago we came from chess and rpgs like advanced d and d… facings, templates, initiative, movements that weren’t random but that were based on race and unit type as one would expect from gams like d and which aimed to create realistic fantasy environments that took advantage of real work experience and intuition. Current iterations of the game are apparently not trying to do that, and seem to appeal to people who want to play games more than forge narratives. Anyways. Not for me…


Good lord this is possibly the funniest humblebrag I've ever seen on this site "We came from chess" I love it.

The thing that's changed about the game since the early days is primarily the simulationist aspects - the style of play where you put your models down on the table and use the rules as a means 'to see what happens'. Zany tables, damage charts, and rules like the old AP system, penetration system and Instant Death are there to create a few big, unpredictable, exciting moments, while the 8th/9th paradigm trends much more towards average performance and outcomes tend to be more predictable. When I shoot a bunch of flat 3 damage rokkits at something, and my opponent has to roll 5 5+ saves or die, that's a lot more predictable than "and now I roll on the damage table where I have a 1 in 6 chance of instantly ka-blooeying you and a 1 in 6 chance of barely inconveniencing you at all"

The game is far more like Chess now than older editions ever were, and that's probably one of the reasons I'm dissatisfied, because I LIVE for the moments when Pawn makes his armor save and unexpectedly swings back and kills Rook.

feth chess. Just my opinion, moving on.


Yeah, and how the pawn gets to shoot twice twice as far if within two squares of the king IFF you spend gamey points for a whombocombos so long as all of your pieces come from the same set… of course.

People who purposefully misread to take things out of context are people I ignore. Ignored.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/17 22:57:34


Post by: the_scotsman


 jeff white wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
Spoiler:
 jeff white wrote:
Unit has the goods on this edition imho. Too gamey… as for older editions seeming more complicated, that seems to be for people who like the card gamey whombocombos of the current style of play, and these seem to be people who came from mtg and video games whereas thirty years ago we came from chess and rpgs like advanced d and d… facings, templates, initiative, movements that weren’t random but that were based on race and unit type as one would expect from gams like d and which aimed to create realistic fantasy environments that took advantage of real work experience and intuition. Current iterations of the game are apparently not trying to do that, and seem to appeal to people who want to play games more than forge narratives. Anyways. Not for me…


Good lord this is possibly the funniest humblebrag I've ever seen on this site "We came from chess" I love it.

The thing that's changed about the game since the early days is primarily the simulationist aspects - the style of play where you put your models down on the table and use the rules as a means 'to see what happens'. Zany tables, damage charts, and rules like the old AP system, penetration system and Instant Death are there to create a few big, unpredictable, exciting moments, while the 8th/9th paradigm trends much more towards average performance and outcomes tend to be more predictable. When I shoot a bunch of flat 3 damage rokkits at something, and my opponent has to roll 5 5+ saves or die, that's a lot more predictable than "and now I roll on the damage table where I have a 1 in 6 chance of instantly ka-blooeying you and a 1 in 6 chance of barely inconveniencing you at all"

The game is far more like Chess now than older editions ever were, and that's probably one of the reasons I'm dissatisfied, because I LIVE for the moments when Pawn makes his armor save and unexpectedly swings back and kills Rook.

feth chess. Just my opinion, moving on.


Yeah, and how the pawn gets to shoot twice twice as far if within two squares of the king IFF you spend gamey points for a whombocombos so long as all of your pieces come from the same set… of course.

People who purposefully misread to take things out of context are people I ignore. Ignored.


Cheers friend, can't wait to hear from you the next time the topic of people being so sensitive these days that they can't handle opinions that are even slightly different from their own comes up.





Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/18 00:17:55


Post by: Rihgu


Just like in 40k the first time my opponent pulled a "shoot twice at +1 with all grenades for mortal wounds" wombo combo stratagem, the first time my opponent pulled a castle or en passant on me it felt like they were making stuff up.

To that end, I say we should ban such card game mechanics in chess, and bring it back to 4th edition while we're at it.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/18 00:48:29


Post by: Goose LeChance


The biggest mistake any new or returning player can make is purchasing a rulebook or codex. Share one between friends, make copies, or "look" online.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/18 05:10:12


Post by: drbored


Goose LeChance wrote:
The biggest mistake any new or returning player can make is purchasing a rulebook or codex. Share one between friends, make copies, or "look" online.


Every year the actual value of the Codexes feels like it's going down. I honestly miss the days of paperback codexes and stuff, because at least if they had a bunch of bupkis mistakes, day 1 FAQs, or whatever else... hey, at least it was cheap. :/


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/18 07:21:01


Post by: Sim-Life


drbored wrote:
Goose LeChance wrote:
The biggest mistake any new or returning player can make is purchasing a rulebook or codex. Share one between friends, make copies, or "look" online.


Every year the actual value of the Codexes feels like it's going down. I honestly miss the days of paperback codexes and stuff, because at least if they had a bunch of bupkis mistakes, day 1 FAQs, or whatever else... hey, at least it was cheap. :/


They also hung around for like 5 years, instead of 3.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/18 09:32:44


Post by: Blackie


 Sim-Life wrote:


I have a well rounded Tyranids army (about 8k pts I think). It sucks. My necrons (around 4k?) are also well rounded and REALLY suck,


Can't tell about your specific collections but average tyranids and necrons armies are definitely fine at the moment for casual gaming. Necrons aren't even bad in competitive metas and they don't play skew lists.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/18 10:51:07


Post by: Sim-Life


 Blackie wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:


I have a well rounded Tyranids army (about 8k pts I think). It sucks. My necrons (around 4k?) are also well rounded and REALLY suck,


Can't tell about your specific collections but average tyranids and necrons armies are definitely fine at the moment for casual gaming. Necrons aren't even bad in competitive metas and they don't play skew lists.


Nah, they suck in casual. I know because I played them in casual, and they sucked. You'll probably shoot back with "well, obviously it's you who sucks." to which I say when I'M the one toning lists down for other armies, then it's not me.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/18 11:58:48


Post by: Ordana


 Blackie wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:


I have a well rounded Tyranids army (about 8k pts I think). It sucks. My necrons (around 4k?) are also well rounded and REALLY suck,


Can't tell about your specific collections but average tyranids and necrons armies are definitely fine at the moment for casual gaming. Necrons aren't even bad in competitive metas and they don't play skew lists.
Really? Necron armies made up of 3x10 warriors, 1 squad of Immortals, Deathmarks, Destroyers, Skorphekh Destroyers and 2 units of Wraiths and Annihilation Barges with maybe a Croissant are doing good in competitive metas?

(no idea of the point, just listen a somewhat random rounded selected of Necron units)

The only somewhat competitive Necron army I have heard of in 9th is the Silver tide and that is very much a skew list based on just throwing more durable bodies on the table then your opponent can deal with.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/18 13:30:56


Post by: vict0988


 Ordana wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:


I have a well rounded Tyranids army (about 8k pts I think). It sucks. My necrons (around 4k?) are also well rounded and REALLY suck,


Can't tell about your specific collections but average tyranids and necrons armies are definitely fine at the moment for casual gaming. Necrons aren't even bad in competitive metas and they don't play skew lists.
Really? Necron armies made up of 3x10 warriors, 1 squad of Immortals, Deathmarks, Destroyers, Skorphekh Destroyers and 2 units of Wraiths and Annihilation Barges with maybe a Croissant are doing good in competitive metas?

(no idea of the point, just listen a somewhat random rounded selected of Necron units)

The only somewhat competitive Necron army I have heard of in 9th is the Silver tide and that is very much a skew list based on just throwing more durable bodies on the table then your opponent can deal with.

Everything but the Deathmarks, Night Scythe and Annihilation Barge among the units you mentioned has seen a top 4 in 9th, usually, you'll see more skew though. Instead of 2 Wraiths and a Skorpekh Destroyer unit you'll see 3 Wraiths or 3 Skorpekhs. But if you've got 3k or 4k instead of exactly 2k then you're pretty likely to be ok, silver tide isn't much stronger than other lists. I'd say Necrons are a fair faction into most enemies, against competitive AdMech you need a lot of terrain to have a chance, against competitive Drukhari you need weighted dice, not exactly fair.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/18 13:34:36


Post by: Sim-Life


 Ordana wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:


I have a well rounded Tyranids army (about 8k pts I think). It sucks. My necrons (around 4k?) are also well rounded and REALLY suck,


Can't tell about your specific collections but average tyranids and necrons armies are definitely fine at the moment for casual gaming. Necrons aren't even bad in competitive metas and they don't play skew lists.
Really? Necron armies made up of 3x10 warriors, 1 squad of Immortals, Deathmarks, Destroyers, Skorphekh Destroyers and 2 units of Wraiths and Annihilation Barges with maybe a Croissant are doing good in competitive metas?

(no idea of the point, just listen a somewhat random rounded selected of Necron units)

The only somewhat competitive Necron army I have heard of in 9th is the Silver tide and that is very much a skew list based on just throwing more durable bodies on the table then your opponent can deal with.


I actually had a look at Necron tournament lists and most seem to be Silent King + catacomb command barge + Chronomancer + 40 necrons+ ghost ark then the rest of the army is like 3 tomb blades, 5 lychguard or a c'tan depending on taste?

I guess because theres a filler unit chucked in there its not skew?


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/18 14:59:23


Post by: Gadzilla666


 vict0988 wrote:
Spoiler:
 Ordana wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:


I have a well rounded Tyranids army (about 8k pts I think). It sucks. My necrons (around 4k?) are also well rounded and REALLY suck,


Can't tell about your specific collections but average tyranids and necrons armies are definitely fine at the moment for casual gaming. Necrons aren't even bad in competitive metas and they don't play skew lists.
Really? Necron armies made up of 3x10 warriors, 1 squad of Immortals, Deathmarks, Destroyers, Skorphekh Destroyers and 2 units of Wraiths and Annihilation Barges with maybe a Croissant are doing good in competitive metas?

(no idea of the point, just listen a somewhat random rounded selected of Necron units)

The only somewhat competitive Necron army I have heard of in 9th is the Silver tide and that is very much a skew list based on just throwing more durable bodies on the table then your opponent can deal with.

Everything but the Deathmarks, Night Scythe and Annihilation Barge among the units you mentioned has seen a top 4 in 9th, usually, you'll see more skew though. Instead of 2 Wraiths and a Skorpekh Destroyer unit you'll see 3 Wraiths or 3 Skorpekhs. But if you've got 3k or 4k instead of exactly 2k then you're pretty likely to be ok, silver tide isn't much stronger than other lists. I'd say Necrons are a fair faction into most enemies, against competitive AdMech you need a lot of terrain to have a chance, against competitive Drukhari you need weighted dice, not exactly fair.

Question: In your opinion, are Necron's problems with Dark Eldar and Admech based on the fundamental rules for Necrons or Dark Eldar and Admech, or points imbalances? Could they be addressed with points cuts for some Necrons units or nerfs for some Dark Eldar and Admech units, or is it a rules issue? In short: are a lot of the balance issues just gw not doing a good enough job balancing the points for older factions against newer codexes?


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/18 17:28:47


Post by: vict0988


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
Spoiler:
 Ordana wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:


I have a well rounded Tyranids army (about 8k pts I think). It sucks. My necrons (around 4k?) are also well rounded and REALLY suck,


Can't tell about your specific collections but average tyranids and necrons armies are definitely fine at the moment for casual gaming. Necrons aren't even bad in competitive metas and they don't play skew lists.
Really? Necron armies made up of 3x10 warriors, 1 squad of Immortals, Deathmarks, Destroyers, Skorphekh Destroyers and 2 units of Wraiths and Annihilation Barges with maybe a Croissant are doing good in competitive metas?

(no idea of the point, just listen a somewhat random rounded selected of Necron units)

The only somewhat competitive Necron army I have heard of in 9th is the Silver tide and that is very much a skew list based on just throwing more durable bodies on the table then your opponent can deal with.

Everything but the Deathmarks, Night Scythe and Annihilation Barge among the units you mentioned has seen a top 4 in 9th, usually, you'll see more skew though. Instead of 2 Wraiths and a Skorpekh Destroyer unit you'll see 3 Wraiths or 3 Skorpekhs. But if you've got 3k or 4k instead of exactly 2k then you're pretty likely to be ok, silver tide isn't much stronger than other lists. I'd say Necrons are a fair faction into most enemies, against competitive AdMech you need a lot of terrain to have a chance, against competitive Drukhari you need weighted dice, not exactly fair.

Question: In your opinion, are Necron's problems with Dark Eldar and Admech based on the fundamental rules for Necrons or Dark Eldar and Admech, or points imbalances? Could they be addressed with points cuts for some Necrons units or nerfs for some Dark Eldar and Admech units, or is it a rules issue? In short: are a lot of the balance issues just gw not doing a good enough job balancing the points for older factions against newer codexes?

I think it's just a points issue, I think Necrons need as many nerfs as they need buffs, most Drukhari units need to go up in points, half of AdMech units need to go up in points. The only things points cannot fix is damage output to survivability ratio and whether resolving or remembering a unit's rules is cumbersome. I think most Necron units strike the right balance between offence and defence, same for Drukhari. AdMech are probably a little too glass cannon-esque, stuff like getting a 100% return on investment isn't something I would associate with AdMech, like an Assault 3 gun with auto-wound on hits of 6 on a T3 4+/6++ body. Necrons and Drukhari have some cumbersome rules, but cumbersome rules like Drukhari Blade Artists or Necron Reanimation Protocols for multi-wound models are not a balance issue, they just bog the game down in minutiae.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/18 17:59:50


Post by: ccs


 Sim-Life wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:


I have a well rounded Tyranids army (about 8k pts I think). It sucks. My necrons (around 4k?) are also well rounded and REALLY suck,


Can't tell about your specific collections but average tyranids and necrons armies are definitely fine at the moment for casual gaming. Necrons aren't even bad in competitive metas and they don't play skew lists.


Nah, they suck in casual. I know because I played them in casual, and they sucked. You'll probably shoot back with "well, obviously it's you who sucks." to which I say when I'M the one toning lists down for other armies, then it's not me.


No, it's very likely a you problem. At least concerning Necrons You're just biased & can't (I.E. won't) see it. I know this because you aren't the only Necron player playing in casual settings & plenty of them (and myself) are doing just fine with our not-undead space robots.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/18 18:02:51


Post by: Void__Dragon


 Sim-Life wrote:

Nah, they suck in casual. I know because I played them in casual, and they sucked. You'll probably shoot back with "well, obviously it's you who sucks." to which I say when I'M the one toning lists down for other armies, then it's not me.


If you get stomped in casual play with Necrons then it is you who is at fault my friend. Be mad about it all you like, but no one has to accept the lies you tell yourself.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/18 18:11:02


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Void__Dragon wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:

Nah, they suck in casual. I know because I played them in casual, and they sucked. You'll probably shoot back with "well, obviously it's you who sucks." to which I say when I'M the one toning lists down for other armies, then it's not me.


If you get stomped in casual play with Necrons then it is you who is at fault my friend. Be mad about it all you like, but no one has to accept the lies you tell yourself.


(Most balanced edition ever!)


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/18 18:13:54


Post by: Tyel


Necrons are in an odd position of probably being the weakest 9th edition book. But realistically if (when) they nerf DE, Ad Mech and possibly some elements of Sisters and Ork Buggies (sorry guys, but yeah), they'll be up there.

As it stands I feel if you are playing casually they are fine - unless the only people you play casually are Dark Eldar players or mysteriously running the above.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/18 18:22:19


Post by: Sim-Life


Ah, the good old "blame the victim" defense. That always works so well. I can win consistently with all-comers Sisters, AdMech, IG and Daemons and even occasionally my nids. But for some reason necrons just make me play like a doofus.

(Also I forgot I also have Grey Knights, which I haven't used much but the game I did play with them, I won, but it was 8th so I dunno if it counts.)


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/18 18:31:37


Post by: Gadzilla666


 vict0988 wrote:
Spoiler:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
 Ordana wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:


I have a well rounded Tyranids army (about 8k pts I think). It sucks. My necrons (around 4k?) are also well rounded and REALLY suck,


Can't tell about your specific collections but average tyranids and necrons armies are definitely fine at the moment for casual gaming. Necrons aren't even bad in competitive metas and they don't play skew lists.
Really? Necron armies made up of 3x10 warriors, 1 squad of Immortals, Deathmarks, Destroyers, Skorphekh Destroyers and 2 units of Wraiths and Annihilation Barges with maybe a Croissant are doing good in competitive metas?

(no idea of the point, just listen a somewhat random rounded selected of Necron units)

The only somewhat competitive Necron army I have heard of in 9th is the Silver tide and that is very much a skew list based on just throwing more durable bodies on the table then your opponent can deal with.

Everything but the Deathmarks, Night Scythe and Annihilation Barge among the units you mentioned has seen a top 4 in 9th, usually, you'll see more skew though. Instead of 2 Wraiths and a Skorpekh Destroyer unit you'll see 3 Wraiths or 3 Skorpekhs. But if you've got 3k or 4k instead of exactly 2k then you're pretty likely to be ok, silver tide isn't much stronger than other lists. I'd say Necrons are a fair faction into most enemies, against competitive AdMech you need a lot of terrain to have a chance, against competitive Drukhari you need weighted dice, not exactly fair.

Question: In your opinion, are Necron's problems with Dark Eldar and Admech based on the fundamental rules for Necrons or Dark Eldar and Admech, or points imbalances? Could they be addressed with points cuts for some Necrons units or nerfs for some Dark Eldar and Admech units, or is it a rules issue? In short: are a lot of the balance issues just gw not doing a good enough job balancing the points for older factions against newer codexes?

I think it's just a points issue, I think Necrons need as many nerfs as they need buffs, most Drukhari units need to go up in points, half of AdMech units need to go up in points. The only things points cannot fix is damage output to survivability ratio and whether resolving or remembering a unit's rules is cumbersome. I think most Necron units strike the right balance between offence and defence, same for Drukhari. AdMech are probably a little too glass cannon-esque, stuff like getting a 100% return on investment isn't something I would associate with AdMech, like an Assault 3 gun with auto-wound on hits of 6 on a T3 4+/6++ body. Necrons and Drukhari have some cumbersome rules, but cumbersome rules like Drukhari Blade Artists or Necron Reanimation Protocols for multi-wound models are not a balance issue, they just bog the game down in minutiae.

Agreed. I think a lot of the balance issues that factions with older codexes, be they early 9th edition codexes like Necrons or 8th edition codexes, is because gw isn't putting enough effort into balancing their points against the more highly tuned newer codexes like AdMech and Dark Eldar. Most of the units in the newer codexes seem a bit cheap for what they do compared to the units in older books.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/18 18:38:06


Post by: Galas


I know that "git gud" is not a good reply but as a matter of fact I suck at this game.

If I play stronger lists I do better but not even 10% of the potential a better player could achieve with those same lists.

But thats fine. I play warhammer 1-3 times a month. 20-30 times a year. How can you be good at something you do 20-30 times a year?

I mean I played thousands of games of lol and I was mediocre at best.

In general , most of the people that play 40k is actually pretty bad at it. But I know, not many people want to admit it because is very easy to come online and complaint about how easy the game is, but then when you are on the table actually making the right choices doesnt come as easy, even if you know the combos or tactics of your list.

In most casual enviroments, the player matter more than the lists because most players range from bad to mediocre so even if one is playing an stronger list , most of the time they are gonna use it so badly that it won't be so different from a less optimized list.

if you really think using 50 points to give power swourds and plasma pistols to your tactical squad sargeants is the difference between winning or losing in a casual or semi competitive enviroment...

Knowing how to play to objetives, what secondaries to pick, and when to engage, will win you more games than changing your lists or units outside the most egregious examples.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/18 19:00:15


Post by: ccs


 Sim-Life wrote:
Ah, the good old "blame the victim" defense. That always works so well. I can win consistently with all-comers Sisters, AdMech, IG and Daemons and even occasionally my nids. But for some reason necrons just make me play like a doofus.


So it IS a you problem.
Though maybe not exactly a skill problem.
Look, there's just some armies that some people aren't compatible with for whatever mysterious reason. You'd think that shouldn't be the case. That in the end, no matter what your minis look like, that it's just math, probability/statistics, & knowing the special rules that apply to an army. Space robot skeleton, sci-fi Nun, card board pawn/token, random Monopoly pieces.... It shouldn't matter.
And yet it doesn't always work like that in miniature wargaming....

But your failure to pilot Necrons does not make them a bad army overall. Just a bad army for you.



Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/18 19:10:28


Post by: Daedalus81


 Sim-Life wrote:
Really? Necron armies made up of 3x10 warriors, 1 squad of Immortals, Deathmarks, Destroyers, Skorphekh Destroyers and 2 units of Wraiths and Annihilation Barges with maybe a Croissant are doing good in competitive metas?

(no idea of the point, just listen a somewhat random rounded selected of Necron units)

The only somewhat competitive Necron army I have heard of in 9th is the Silver tide and that is very much a skew list based on just throwing more durable bodies on the table then your opponent can deal with.


I actually had a look at Necron tournament lists and most seem to be Silent King + catacomb command barge + Chronomancer + 40 necrons+ ghost ark then the rest of the army is like 3 tomb blades, 5 lychguard or a c'tan depending on taste?

I guess because theres a filler unit chucked in there its not skew?


What do you mean when you say "most"? 50%? 60%? There's tons of lists without SK though you'd be crazy not to take a ctan most games.

This guy took 2nd
Spoiler:

Dynasty Choice: Circumstance of Awakening: Relentlessly Expansionist, Dynastic Tradition: Eternal Conquerors, Dynasty: <Custom>

+ HQ +

Overlord [6 PL, 110pts]: Relic: Voidreaper, Voidscythe, Warlord, Warlord Trait (Codex 2): Eternal Madness

Plasmancer [5 PL, 90pts, -1CP]: Arkana: Quantum Orb, Dynastic Heirlooms, Relic: Veil of Darkness

+ Troops +

Necron Warriors [12 PL, 260pts]
. 20x Necron Warrior (Gauss Flayer): 20x Gauss Flayer

+ Elites +

Cryptothralls [2 PL, 40pts]
. 2x Cryptothrall: 2x Scouring Eye, 2x Scythed Limbs

Cryptothralls [2 PL, 40pts]
. 2x Cryptothrall: 2x Scouring Eye, 2x Scythed Limbs

++ Vanguard Detachment -3CP (Necrons) [78 PL, 1,450pts, -5CP] ++

+ Configuration +

Detachment Command Cost [-3CP]

Dynasty Choice: Circumstance of Awakening: Relentlessly Expansionist, Dynastic Tradition: Eternal Conquerors, Dynasty: <Custom>

+ HQ +

Skorpekh Lord [7 PL, 130pts, -2CP]: Dynastic Heirlooms, Rarefied Nobility, Relic: Gauntlet of the Conflagrator, Warlord Trait (Codex 1): Enduring Will

+ Elites +

C'tan Shard of the Nightbringer [19 PL, 370pts]: Power of the C'tan: Antimatter Meteor

Canoptek Plasmacyte [1 PL, 15pts]

Canoptek Plasmacyte [1 PL, 15pts]

Skorpekh Destroyers [10 PL, 210pts]
. 2x Skorpekh Destroyer (Reap-Blade): 2x Hyperphase Reap-Blade
. 4x Skorpekh Destroyer (Thresher): 4x Hyperphase Threshers

Skorpekh Destroyers [10 PL, 210pts]
. 2x Skorpekh Destroyer (Reap-Blade): 2x Hyperphase Reap-Blade
. 4x Skorpekh Destroyer (Thresher): 4x Hyperphase Threshers

+ Heavy Support +

Lokhust Destroyers [15 PL, 250pts]
. 5x Lokhust Destroyer: 5x Gauss Cannon

Lokhust Destroyers [15 PL, 250pts]
. 5x Lokhust Destroyer: 5x Gauss Cannon


This guy was LWWWWL and took 7th

Spoiler:

Dynasty Choice: Circumstance of Awakening: Relentlessly Expansionist, Dynastic Tradition: Eternal Conquerors, Dynasty: <Custom>

+ HQ +

Chronomancer: Aeonstave, Dynastic Heirlooms, Relic: Veil of Darkness

Lord: Relic: Orb of Eternity, Resurrection Orb, Staff of Light, Warlord, Warlord Trait (Codex 3): Immortal Pride

Technomancer: Canoptek Cloak

+ Troops +

Immortals: Gauss Blaster, 5x Immortal

Immortals: Gauss Blaster, 5x Immortal

Necron Warriors
. 19x Necron Warrior (Gauss Reaper): 19x Gauss Reaper

+ Elites +

C'tan Shard of the Nightbringer: Power of the C'tan: Transdimensional Thunderbolt

Cryptothralls
. 2x Cryptothrall: 2x Scouring Eye, 2x Scythed Limbs

Flayed Ones
. 5x Flayed One: 5x Flayer Claws

Skorpekh Destroyers: Skorpekh Destroyer (Reap-Blade)
. 4x Skorpekh Destroyer (Thresher): 4x Hyperphase Threshers

+ Fast Attack +

Canoptek Scarab Swarms
. 3x Canoptek Scarab Swarm: 3x Feeder Mandibles

Canoptek Wraiths
. 5x Canoptek Wraith (Claws): 5x Vicious Claws

+ Heavy Support +

Annihilation Barge: Gauss Cannon

Annihilation Barge: Gauss Cannon

Tesseract Ark
. Two Gauss Cannons: 2x Gauss Cannon





Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/19 07:06:15


Post by: Blackie


 Daedalus81 wrote:


This guy took 2nd
Spoiler:

Dynasty Choice: Circumstance of Awakening: Relentlessly Expansionist, Dynastic Tradition: Eternal Conquerors, Dynasty: <Custom>

+ HQ +

Overlord [6 PL, 110pts]: Relic: Voidreaper, Voidscythe, Warlord, Warlord Trait (Codex 2): Eternal Madness

Plasmancer [5 PL, 90pts, -1CP]: Arkana: Quantum Orb, Dynastic Heirlooms, Relic: Veil of Darkness

+ Troops +

Necron Warriors [12 PL, 260pts]
. 20x Necron Warrior (Gauss Flayer): 20x Gauss Flayer

+ Elites +

Cryptothralls [2 PL, 40pts]
. 2x Cryptothrall: 2x Scouring Eye, 2x Scythed Limbs

Cryptothralls [2 PL, 40pts]
. 2x Cryptothrall: 2x Scouring Eye, 2x Scythed Limbs

++ Vanguard Detachment -3CP (Necrons) [78 PL, 1,450pts, -5CP] ++

+ Configuration +

Detachment Command Cost [-3CP]

Dynasty Choice: Circumstance of Awakening: Relentlessly Expansionist, Dynastic Tradition: Eternal Conquerors, Dynasty: <Custom>

+ HQ +

Skorpekh Lord [7 PL, 130pts, -2CP]: Dynastic Heirlooms, Rarefied Nobility, Relic: Gauntlet of the Conflagrator, Warlord Trait (Codex 1): Enduring Will

+ Elites +

C'tan Shard of the Nightbringer [19 PL, 370pts]: Power of the C'tan: Antimatter Meteor

Canoptek Plasmacyte [1 PL, 15pts]

Canoptek Plasmacyte [1 PL, 15pts]

Skorpekh Destroyers [10 PL, 210pts]
. 2x Skorpekh Destroyer (Reap-Blade): 2x Hyperphase Reap-Blade
. 4x Skorpekh Destroyer (Thresher): 4x Hyperphase Threshers

Skorpekh Destroyers [10 PL, 210pts]
. 2x Skorpekh Destroyer (Reap-Blade): 2x Hyperphase Reap-Blade
. 4x Skorpekh Destroyer (Thresher): 4x Hyperphase Threshers

+ Heavy Support +

Lokhust Destroyers [15 PL, 250pts]
. 5x Lokhust Destroyer: 5x Gauss Cannon

Lokhust Destroyers [15 PL, 250pts]
. 5x Lokhust Destroyer: 5x Gauss Cannon




And that's a list basically made by cheap halves of the starter set. The exact opposite of skew.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/19 07:13:23


Post by: dreadblade


I personally think the complexity is in the right place - the codexes. Without it, sure the game would be easier to pick up for new players, but experienced players could lose interest. That's not to say that I don't think the rules could be improved by removing some of the complexity (CPs and stratagems), but I think the high level idea is right.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/19 07:17:45


Post by: Sim-Life


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:

What do you mean when you say "most"? 50%? 60%? There's tons of lists without SK though you'd be crazy not to take a ctan most games.




By most I mean "the ones google showed me when I googled 'necron tournament list 2021'"


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/19 07:41:59


Post by: Blackie


 dreadblade wrote:
I personally think the complexity is in the right place - the codexes. Without it, sure the game would be easier to pick up for new players, but experienced players could lose interest. That's not to say that I don't think the rules could be improved by removing some of the complexity (CPs and stratagems), but I think the high level idea is right.


I don't think CPs, stratagems and any other codex specific rule adds too much complexity. I mean, combined with the core rules there aren't many more rules than we had in the past. And current rules are way easier to understand and remember, they're simply better written.

I do have a problem of complexity, or just standard bloat, when in a codex there's tons of stuff that is almost identical. Take the ork codex: why 4 planes and 5 buggies for example? In the older codexes buggies had one profile and four possible weapons, now there are five datasheets and 15 weapons between them, with some that are basically the same thing (rokkit launcha, rokkit kannon, wing missiles) but with a slightly different profile. Each model has also specific own rules. What's the point of having something like 10 transports in a SM codex?

For someone new it's extremely hard to figure out what to buy and play, it's not a matter of remembering the rules.

Good internal balance that 9th edition codexes have helps with that, but it's still a barrier for beginners, especially for those who want to play armies that don't have good starters/patrol boxes.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/19 07:56:06


Post by: AngryAngel80


It's a bloated mess, and even others are talking about it aside from here. The only ones who don't see it probably say very little bad about 40k no matter what it does. Not to cast shade on anyone directly but, looking at it as a new player, your mind would melt with the level of bloat to run some armies currently and it'll only get worse.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/19 09:13:59


Post by: vipoid


 Blackie wrote:
I don't think CPs, stratagems and any other codex specific rule adds too much complexity.


I have to disagree. These things do add a lot of complexity.

What they don't add is depth.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/19 09:54:47


Post by: dreadblade


 vipoid wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
I don't think CPs, stratagems and any other codex specific rule adds too much complexity.


I have to disagree. These things do add a lot of complexity.

What they don't add is depth.


I'm not against codex (read faction) specific rules, but I'd rather lose the CP/stratagem mechanic. Put unit-specific rules on the datasheet then you don't have to try and memorise and cross-reference so much.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/19 13:56:03


Post by: vipoid


 dreadblade wrote:
 vipoid wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
I don't think CPs, stratagems and any other codex specific rule adds too much complexity.


I have to disagree. These things do add a lot of complexity.

What they don't add is depth.


I'm not against codex (read faction) specific rules, but I'd rather lose the CP/stratagem mechanic. Put unit-specific rules on the datasheet then you don't have to try and memorise and cross-reference so much.


I absolutely agree regarding stratagems and CP.

As for faction-specific rules, I think it's fine to have them but with two conditions:

1) We also have USRs. The game does not need 400 different names for Deep Strike or Feel No Pain, and having them just makes other rule-interactions more awkward because you also can't reference them by name.

2) They have to actually add something to the game beyond more bloody rerolls. Reroll 1s when standing near a character, reroll 1s to hit in melee, reroll 1s to wound when shooting, zzzzzZZZZZ. These rules add nothing to the game beyond bloat and we'd be far better off cutting them wholesale.

I think it's reasonable to say that a big part of unit- or faction-specific rules is to help differentiate the different units and factions. Thus, it makes no sense whatsoever if all these "faction-specific" rules basically amount to the same rules, just with different names.

As an example, let's take three units - a Space Marine Captain, a Thousand Sons Exalted Sorcerer, and a Dark Eldar Archon.

These are, I think you would agree, quite different units. You have a super-soldier who's a loyal servant of the Emperor, a high-ranking sorcerer of the Chaos god of change and mutation, and vampiric space elf who thrives on inflicting pain and suffering and excels at labyrinthine strategies.

So what special rules are these three characters given to differentiate them?

Well, the Captain has Rites of Battle, an aura that lets friendly units within 6" reroll 1s to hit.
Meanwhile, the Exalted Sorcerer has Lord of the Thousand Sons, an aura that lets friendly units within 6" reroll 1s to hit.
In stark contras, the Archon has Overlord, an aura that lets friendly units within 6" reroll 1s to hit.

This is the sort of thing I absolutely *don't* want to see when it comes to special rules for units or factions.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/19 16:10:19


Post by: jeff white


The reason for USRs is exactly as Vipoid specifies. These could and should be core rules in a single main rulebook. Faction specific differences should belong to the faction. IN these cases, the units themselves have race related differences in intiative (if this could be a thing again), strength, toughness, access to wargear, and so on. So, though employing USRs, these units will play differently and feel different on the table.

Also, about the multiple types of buggy differentiated by weaponry, fully agree. For a race which bolts scraps of wrecked whatever together into functioning vehicles through the weird power of Mork and Gork, why are all of these "Scrapjets"(TM) excactly the same and so different from other vehicles, as if coming from a new Hyundai assembly line? I have a similar problem with new ork sculpts for Ao$ - what is the deal with smooth rounded armor panels all painted bright yellow? For a "destruction" army, that is some pretty nifty outfit... yuck.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/19 16:57:43


Post by: Gert


 jeff white wrote:
The reason for USRs is exactly as Vipoid specifies. These could and should be core rules in a single main rulebook. Faction specific differences should belong to the faction. IN these cases, the units themselves have race related differences in intiative (if this could be a thing again), strength, toughness, access to wargear, and so on. So, though employing USRs, these units will play differently and feel different on the table.

I mean, I'm pretty sure Death Guard play differently to Drukhari even though they both have access to a similar rule that echoes FNP. Can anyone provide examples of any USRs they think would work for the 9th ruleset?
For me, the fact that I don't have to look through a BRB to find base rules for units is pretty great.

Also, about the multiple types of buggy differentiated by weaponry, fully agree. For a race which bolts scraps of wrecked whatever together into functioning vehicles through the weird power of Mork and Gork, why are all of these "Scrapjets"(TM) excactly the same and so different from other vehicles, as if coming from a new Hyundai assembly line?

Because it's a model kit, there's only so much you can do with it. If you want differentiated units, kitbash like everyone else, if you're an Ork player you'll have the spare parts. Did you also complain about the Battlewagon, Trukk, Warbikes, Wartrike, Warbuggy, and Ork Jets?

I have a similar problem with new ork sculpts for Ao$ - what is the deal with smooth rounded armor panels all painted bright yellow? For a "destruction" army, that is some pretty nifty outfit... yuck.

The Ironsunz wear yellow so people can see them coming. It's a sign you're about to get a good kicking. Also, Bad Moons are yellow. Orks like yellow cos it's flashy, shows you've got loads of teef.
Orcs and Orruks have had rounded armour since WHFB, and the Ironjawz are based on 'Ardboys. Rounded armour isn't magic science like gunpowder, you just hit it until it isn't flat anymore.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/19 18:08:19


Post by: vict0988


 Gert wrote:
 jeff white wrote:
The reason for USRs is exactly as Vipoid specifies. These could and should be core rules in a single main rulebook. Faction specific differences should belong to the faction. IN these cases, the units themselves have race related differences in intiative (if this could be a thing again), strength, toughness, access to wargear, and so on. So, though employing USRs, these units will play differently and feel different on the table.

I mean, I'm pretty sure Death Guard play differently to Drukhari even though they both have access to a similar rule that echoes FNP. Can anyone provide examples of any USRs they think would work for the 9th ruleset?
For me, the fact that I don't have to look through a BRB to find base rules for units is pretty great.

I agree, having to flip to different places, even within the same book is not good. A datasheet should contain all rules, except for the wordiest ones like Resurrection Protocols and Power from Pain.

Deep Strike, Outflank, Feel No Pain, Infiltrate, Scout, Hard to Hit, Hard to Wound, Poisoned Weapon, Eternal Warrior, It Will Not Die would be my suggestions for rules that should be renamed, it's okay if you cannot immediately guess what these would do, I would still want the rule to be spelled out, I just want name changes.

Deep Strike: During deployment, you can set up this unit in Reserves instead of placing it on the battlefield. If you do, then during the Reinforcements step of one of your Movement phases, you can set up this unit anywhere on the battlefield that is more than 9" away from any enemy models.
Outflank: During deployment, you can set up this unit in Reserves instead of placing it on the battlefield. If you do, then during the Reinforcements step of one of your Movement phases, you can set up this unit anywhere on the battlefield that is more than 9" away from any enemy models and wholly within 6" of the same battlefield edge.
(x+) Feel No Pain: Each time this unit loses a wound, roll a D6; on an x+, the damage is ignored and the unit does not lose that wound.
Infiltrate: During deployment, when you set up this unit then it can be set up anywhere on the battlefield that is more than 9" away from the enemy deployment zone and any enemy models.
Scout (x): At the start of the first battle round, models in this unit can make a Normal Move x". They cannot end this move within 9" of any enemy models.
Hard to Hit/Hard to Hit (Melee)/Hard to Hit (Shooting): Subtract 1 from hit rolls for attacks made against this unit./Subtract 1 from hit rolls for Melee attacks made against this unit./Subtract 1 from hit rolls for Shooting attacks made against this unit.
Eternal Warrior (x-z): Unmodified wound rolls of x-z always fail against this unit.
It Will Not Die: At the start of your Command phase, each model in this unit regains 1 lost wound.

SZAREKHAN DYNASTIC CODE example
Each time a model with this code would lose a wound as the result of a mortal wound, roll one D6; on a 5+ that wound is not lost. -> Units with this code have a 5+ Feel No Pain against mortal wounds. Each time this unit loses a wound from a mortal wound, roll a D6; on an 5+, the damage is ignored and the unit does not lose that wound.

So if your opponent doesn't get what you mean when you say "units with this code have a 5+ FNP against mortal wounds", the rest of the explanation is still there, but GW helps maintain the vocabulary they built over editions to make learning the rules of new armies more manageable. Reading that Szarekhan Necrons have a 5+ FNP against mortal wounds and then having to look it up in the main rulebook would not be good, half the shorthand used to explain rules being informal isn't good either.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/19 18:41:03


Post by: vipoid


 vict0988 wrote:

It Will Not Die: At the start of your Command phase, each model in this unit regains 1 lost wound.


Very minor point - I'd probably make this "It Will Not Die (X): At the start of your Command phase, each model in this unit regains X lost wound(s)."

So X could be 1 but it could also be 2 or 3 or d3.

As with your FNP example, it just adds a little more flexibility.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/19 19:00:12


Post by: Dysartes


The same sort of logic could also be applied to the distance limitations of Deep Strike, Infiltrate and/or Outflank, though I'd be very hesitant to differ from the basic 9".


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/20 01:34:29


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Everything is better with (X) values.

If it were Deep Strike (X) that would allow for fewer special rules and exceptions to rules.

 Gert wrote:
Can anyone provide examples of any USRs they think would work for the 9th ruleset?
Any rules that are repeated between different books.

You have to look at USRs in a similar way that we would look at data compression. It's about removing redundancies via reducing instances of the same information being repeated over and over again. I think the perfect example of this is the "Overcharge" that most plasma weaponry can do. This rule is repeated over and over again, data-sheet to data-sheet, Codex to Codex, and with a few small variations here and there. This repetition has led to weird rules inconsistencies as well, such as Chaos Rhinos killing themselves instantly on a 1 because they use the Combi-Weapon rules, which are generic.

If the rulebook had a simple USR - Overcharge (X) - and defined it as "When an unmodified roll of X is scored on a To Hit roll, the unit suffers 1 Mortal Wound", you wouldn't need to repeat it a thousand times everywhere, and as it's an (X) value it automatically allows for scaling and special versions of the rule without re-writing the rule.

This is the benefit of USRs. It's the same principle that GW has taken for Marines. After an edition of having to include Primaris units in every Marine-focused Psychic Awakening book because BA/DA/etc. could take them, but they weren't native to their book, they changed those factions into supplements and put all the Primaris units into a single core book. Rather than USRs it's more USMU - Universal Space Marine Units.

 Gert wrote:
For me, the fact that I don't have to look through a BRB to find base rules for units is pretty great.
And if the rules were compressed in such a fashion that there was limited chance of one person's FNP being slightly different from another, there'd be no reason to repeat them 5+ times per book. Plus you'd learn what that rule meant because it exists in a single location, thus you wouldn't have to keep looking through the BRB.

Fewer rules, compressed in one location, less to learn, more time spent playing, less time pouring through data-sheets.

 Gert wrote:
Because it's a model kit, there's only so much you can do with it.
That's a bit backwards. GW made the choice to release 6 different Buggies with zero options (rules or model-wise) rather than a single Buggie (or even a couple - a Buggie and a Trike), and thanks to no model/no rule, the race that should have the most kit-bash-ability and customisation options gets 6 set models with set options in the biggest display of anti-creativity from GW.

There is plenty you can do with a model kit. GW chose not to do it that way.



Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/20 02:05:29


Post by: Dekskull


I'm still playing third edition with family. LOL.

Just like anything else with the hobby my advice is to take your time, don't be in a hurry and don't rush to judgment. Just like it takes time to assemble and paint the models, it takes time to adjust to new rules.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/20 08:17:32


Post by: Bosskelot


My response to this discussion whenever it comes up is basically: 9th Ed isn't complex, but certain armies are. People talk about being overwhelmed by options and relics and upgrades and pre-game stuff or command phases being absurd, but I'm sitting here as a Necron ans Drukhari player going "u wot m8"

GW's major misstep has been making the most popular and prevalent army and one which new players are encouraged to pick up, one of the more complex to build army lists for and actually play. Of course Admech is also an issue in terms of rulesbloat too.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/20 08:43:18


Post by: Dysartes


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Gert wrote:
Can anyone provide examples of any USRs they think would work for the 9th ruleset?
Any rules that are repeated between different books.

You have to look at USRs in a similar way that we would look at data compression. It's about removing redundancies via reducing instances of the same information being repeated over and over again. I think the perfect example of this is the "Overcharge" that most plasma weaponry can do. This rule is repeated over and over again, data-sheet to data-sheet, Codex to Codex, and with a few small variations here and there. This repetition has led to weird rules inconsistencies as well, such as Chaos Rhinos killing themselves instantly on a 1 because they use the Combi-Weapon rules, which are generic.

If the rulebook had a simple USR - Overcharge (X) - and defined it as "When an unmodified roll of X is scored on a To Hit roll, the unit suffers 1 Mortal Wound", you wouldn't need to repeat it a thousand times everywhere, and as it's an (X) value it automatically allows for scaling and special versions of the rule without re-writing the rule.

This is the benefit of USRs. It's the same principle that GW has taken for Marines. After an edition of having to include Primaris units in every Marine-focused Psychic Awakening book because BA/DA/etc. could take them, but they weren't native to their book, they changed those factions into supplements and put all the Primaris units into a single core book. Rather than USRs it's more USMU - Universal Space Marine Units.


Assuming we got down to a sensible amount of USRs - and I'm thinking 1-2 pages at most - there is absolutely nothing stopping that page or two being repreinted in each 'dex as an appendix.

Heck, on datasheets where there is room, you could even reprint the rule in full - but you'd still be using the standardised language and name, which is what helps to breed familiarity with the rule and how it operates.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/20 08:55:53


Post by: Blackie


Special rules that have slightly different variations and can be condensed into USRs are really a handful of rules. While the idea is definitely a right one and deserves to be implemented, at the end of the day it wouldn't really have a significant impact on bloat.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/20 10:29:42


Post by: Slipspace


 Blackie wrote:
Special rules that have slightly different variations and can be condensed into USRs are really a handful of rules. While the idea is definitely a right one and deserves to be implemented, at the end of the day it wouldn't really have a significant impact on bloat.


I disagree. It would massively help communication between players by providing a common vocabulary. It would also aid transition between armies because you don't have to re-learn everything from scratch, or re-discover what the name for Deep Strike is for your new army. It also makes pointing out differences much easier. If 99% of units have standard Deep Strike but the other 1% have a modified version of it, using USRs makes it really obvious when one rules is different, because it will use a different name, or at least call out the difference in some way.

If you were going to go back to USRs (which I think GW absolutely should) the single most important thing is to make sure they are definitely universal. The problem with 7th, in particular, was that the list of USRs contained things that were really not very universal at all, and rarely used.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/20 10:48:31


Post by: Blackie


But what are those rules than can be condensed into USRs?

Deep strike, feel no pain and explosions basically.

Problem with 7th was the cross reference: a model like Celestine had 10+ USRs to remember and none of them was described under her datasheet or even her codex. I hate doing the cross refence, especially if I have to double check from a different book. I mean, 3-4 faction related USRs to cross reference aren't an issue, but a bunch from the rulebook? I'd accept that concept only if those rules were fully described in the units' datasheets, like they are now. Then it would be an improvement.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/20 11:11:39


Post by: H.B.M.C.


You can compress far more rules than just that.

The aforementioned "Overcharge", rules that let you ignore "Look Out Sir", the Bodyguard rule, melta rules, flame/spray weapons, poisonous weapons, rending weapons, weapons that re-roll To wound, indirect weapons, things that reduce damage by (X), things that mean you can't be wounded on better than (X).

It's not hard.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/20 11:12:16


Post by: Aash


Slipspace wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
Special rules that have slightly different variations and can be condensed into USRs are really a handful of rules. While the idea is definitely a right one and deserves to be implemented, at the end of the day it wouldn't really have a significant impact on bloat.


I disagree. It would massively help communication between players by providing a common vocabulary. It would also aid transition between armies because you don't have to re-learn everything from scratch, or re-discover what the name for Deep Strike is for your new army. It also makes pointing out differences much easier. If 99% of units have standard Deep Strike but the other 1% have a modified version of it, using USRs makes it really obvious when one rules is different, because it will use a different name, or at least call out the difference in some way.

If you were going to go back to USRs (which I think GW absolutely should) the single most important thing is to make sure they are definitely universal. The problem with 7th, in particular, was that the list of USRs contained things that were really not very universal at all, and rarely used.


I wholeheartedly agree with the above. In addition to USRs actually being universal, if they were to be formally re-introduced, they should be limited in number and USRs shouldn't grant other USRs.

For me, the key is about a shared vocabulary first and foremost, I wouldn't object to datasheets having the full rules of USRs written out as special rules currently are. As others have said, the need to flip between books or to different parts of books is cumbersome.



Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/20 11:20:18


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Dysartes wrote:
Assuming we got down to a sensible amount of USRs - and I'm thinking 1-2 pages at most - there is absolutely nothing stopping that page or two being repreinted in each 'dex as an appendix.
That's actually a really good idea. Makes 'em truly universal.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/20 11:23:45


Post by: Mezmorki


Part of the reaction against USRs in the past is, I think, a consequence of how they were presented as the editions rolled on. By 7th edition, the USRs took up dozens and dozens of pages because of how they were laid out on the page and written. Each one had a solid paragraph of unnecessary "fluff" at the start, the ruling themselves were often written in an overly verbose manner, paragraph style, with big headings. It all meant they were way less concise than they could be and as a player you were constantly having to flip through pages of USRs. It was annoying.

But I maintain that USRs are 100% the way to go, they just need to be presented concisely. I managed to fit all of the USR's for ProHammer (which basically covers everything from 7th) on about 3 pages in some nice tidy bullet lists. Makes it SOOO much easier to access them.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/20 11:36:19


Post by: the_scotsman


Aight, so six pages in, time to fess up folks, otherwise it's gonna haunt your internet karma soul forever in the afterlife and you'll be cursed to only post on sockpuppets by Stan, Prince of Heck, Manager of Minor Infractions: Who made up the one-post-ever OP who just happened to pop in and start up a controversy then leave never to post again?

"Old Editions Best Editions" Crowd, was it you? Mezmorki? Aphyon? Jeff White?

"I hate everything GW does and post continuously out of spite" guys? AnomanderRake? auticus? Tneva?

Come on, come up to the front of the class and tell the truth, you'll feel better.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/20 11:43:18


Post by: a_typical_hero


Maybe it was an inside job by somebody who actually enjoys the game to let the opposition look especially silly and desperate.

Next level posting jk, obviously


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/20 11:48:44


Post by: vipoid


 Dysartes wrote:

Assuming we got down to a sensible amount of USRs - and I'm thinking 1-2 pages at most - there is absolutely nothing stopping that page or two being repreinted in each 'dex as an appendix.


Absolutely agree with this.

Hell, I think not doing this was what soured people to USRs in the past. Especially when they were presented as an army-wide rule. So you'd have something like Blood Fury: Blood Angel Models have the Furious Charge special rule (see main Rulebook). As you say, there was no reason why they couldn't have just reprinted the relevant rule in full but instead it directed players to search through an entirely different book to find out what it did.


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You can compress far more rules than just that.

The aforementioned "Overcharge", rules that let you ignore "Look Out Sir", the Bodyguard rule, melta rules, flame/spray weapons, poisonous weapons, rending weapons, weapons that re-roll To wound, indirect weapons, things that reduce damage by (X), things that mean you can't be wounded on better than (X).

It's not hard.


What about auras? Particularly the common ones like reroll 1s to hit? Do you think they can be made into universal rules? (Personally, I'd much prefer to just scrap the damn things but it seems GW is still in love with them.)


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/20 11:57:41


Post by: Tyel


 the_scotsman wrote:
Come on, come up to the front of the class and tell the truth, you'll feel better.


I'm sure Peakab00 will be logging in any time now, if they can remember their password.

------

I don't feel USRs matter. On paper yes, a system where you have about 10 rules, and every unit in the game can be understood by having one or more of those rules, is undoubtedly simpler. But GW will never limit themselves to such (despite, in edition after edition, saying they would.) Which is why you end up with dozens of USRs, many of which applied to a tiny number of units, and then still had plenty of unique special rules for this and that unit anyway.

It clearly bugs some people a lot that there are a dozen different rules that give a unit "deepstrike" - but it just doesn't bother me. I don't think that's meaningful complexity or bloat.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/20 12:08:10


Post by: Daedalus81


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You can compress far more rules than just that.

The aforementioned "Overcharge", rules that let you ignore "Look Out Sir", the Bodyguard rule, melta rules, flame/spray weapons, poisonous weapons, rending weapons, weapons that re-roll To wound, indirect weapons, things that reduce damage by (X), things that mean you can't be wounded on better than (X).

It's not hard.


I'm still having a hard time following how USRs help. When I introduce a dreadnought I remind them it has minus one damage. I don't tell them it has 'Duty Eternal' or whatever the name is for Chaos. I say Deepstrike or 'this weapon is like melta except it is +2 short +4 long'.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/20 12:12:51


Post by: Sim-Life


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You can compress far more rules than just that.

The aforementioned "Overcharge", rules that let you ignore "Look Out Sir", the Bodyguard rule, melta rules, flame/spray weapons, poisonous weapons, rending weapons, weapons that re-roll To wound, indirect weapons, things that reduce damage by (X), things that mean you can't be wounded on better than (X).

It's not hard.


I'm still having a hard time following how USRs help. When I introduce a dreadnought I remind them it has minus one damage. I don't tell them it has 'Duty Eternal' or whatever the name is for Chaos. I say Deepstrike or 'this weapon is like melta except it is +2 short +4 long'.


It helps because it keeps the rules in one place. Everyone owns the rulebook (or should, at least). If someone says "I have Feel No Pain [X]" everyone knows what that is. The fact that the community even still refers to it as that speaks volumes.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/20 12:14:35


Post by: Crispy78


 Sim-Life wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You can compress far more rules than just that.

The aforementioned "Overcharge", rules that let you ignore "Look Out Sir", the Bodyguard rule, melta rules, flame/spray weapons, poisonous weapons, rending weapons, weapons that re-roll To wound, indirect weapons, things that reduce damage by (X), things that mean you can't be wounded on better than (X).

It's not hard.


I'm still having a hard time following how USRs help. When I introduce a dreadnought I remind them it has minus one damage. I don't tell them it has 'Duty Eternal' or whatever the name is for Chaos. I say Deepstrike or 'this weapon is like melta except it is +2 short +4 long'.


It helps because it keeps the rules in one place. Everyone owns the rulebook (or should, at least). If someone says "I have Feel No Pain [X]" everyone knows what that is. The fact that the community even still refers to it as that speaks volumes.


My son started playing in 8th and doesn't have that frame of reference in the first place. He doesn't yet fully appreciate that every codex has the same damn rule for deep strike / feel no pain / objective secured etc, and just calls it something different...


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/20 12:21:39


Post by: Gert


People have made some good points in regards to USRs but for me it boils down to this:
The rules for the game (e.g. turns, phases, how to play the game) should be in the BRB.
The rules for my army (e.g. special rules, weapon rules) should be in my Codex.
I shouldn't have to jump between a BRB and a Codex to find out what unit X's ability does.
My biggest bugbear about 30k is that I need 3 books to play a Legion. It's why I prefer playing Militia, it's all mostly contained within one book.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/20 12:25:16


Post by: Daedalus81


Crispy78 wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
It helps because it keeps the rules in one place. Everyone owns the rulebook (or should, at least). If someone says "I have Feel No Pain [X]" everyone knows what that is. The fact that the community even still refers to it as that speaks volumes.


My son started playing in 8th and doesn't have that frame of reference in the first place. He doesn't yet fully appreciate that every codex has the same damn rule for deep strike / feel no pain / objective secured etc, and just calls it something different...


Fair points, but when I say -1 damage it would then become "whatever USR", which then they need to go lookup if they don't recall the rule where I gave them all the info immediately. Deepstrike is just jargon at this point so I'd imagine new players would reference it as 'reinforcements 9" away'. It'd be an interesting study in any case.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Gert wrote:
People have made some good points in regards to USRs but for me it boils down to this:
The rules for the game (e.g. turns, phases, how to play the game) should be in the BRB.
The rules for my army (e.g. special rules, weapon rules) should be in my Codex.
I shouldn't have to jump between a BRB and a Codex to find out what unit X's ability does.


This is solved by the suggestion to put USRs in codexes, but could become problematic is USRs are added.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/20 12:41:29


Post by: Mezmorki


 the_scotsman wrote:
Aight, so six pages in, time to fess up folks, otherwise it's gonna haunt your internet karma soul forever in the afterlife and you'll be cursed to only post on sockpuppets by Stan, Prince of Heck, Manager of Minor Infractions: Who made up the one-post-ever OP who just happened to pop in and start up a controversy then leave never to post again?

"Old Editions Best Editions" Crowd, was it you? Mezmorki? Aphyon? Jeff White?

"I hate everything GW does and post continuously out of spite" guys? AnomanderRake? auticus? Tneva?

Come on, come up to the front of the class and tell the truth, you'll feel better.


Lol. Wasn't me!


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/20 13:03:52


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Gert wrote:
I shouldn't have to jump between a BRB and a Codex to find out what unit X's ability does.
If that's the only sticking point, then it's easily solved. The USRs are put into each 'Dex, verbatim. They're in every book, and an update to one means an update to all. Means everyone is using the same basic rules for the most common special rules in the game.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
This is solved by the suggestion to put USRs in codexes, but could become problematic is USRs are added.
That's rules bloat, but would only require a meagre level of discipline to avoid.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/20 13:04:09


Post by: vict0988


 Gert wrote:
People have made some good points in regards to USRs but for me it boils down to this:
The rules for the game (e.g. turns, phases, how to play the game) should be in the BRB.
The rules for my army (e.g. special rules, weapon rules) should be in my Codex.
I shouldn't have to jump between a BRB and a Codex to find out what unit X's ability does.
My biggest bugbear about 30k is that I need 3 books to play a Legion. It's why I prefer playing Militia, it's all mostly contained within one book.

I agree, but I think the flavour names don't provide enough benefit compared to the benefit of simplicity that using the same universal name for a rule does. Did GW change Reinforcement rules on a per unit basis in 8th when beta strikes were too powerful? No, the purported benefits of the flavour names was all fugazi. Necrons don't even have DS described on the datasheet for a lot of units, but still have for other units. You might imagine that it's based on whether there was room to describe the rule, but it is based on whether fluff-wise the unit is arriving via one way or another, the actual rule is identical.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/20 13:06:59


Post by: Blackie


 Daedalus81 wrote:


This is solved by the suggestion to put USRs in codexes, but could become problematic is USRs are added.


They could simply write all the USR a unit has in its datasheet, in full. But same thing has the same name for all codexes. So if a USR changes a single FAQ works for everyone. There's no need to write USRs in the rulebook.

Cross referencing is just as annoying than re-rolls.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/20 13:09:00


Post by: a_typical_hero


The flavour of the rule's origin is something that could find it's place in the (half-)page long unit description imho. I get the idea behind it, but I think it is a bit unnecessary to have the same exact rule under several different names across the factions.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/20 13:12:14


Post by: Slipspace


Blackie wrote:But what are those rules than can be condensed into USRs?

Deep strike, feel no pain and explosions basically.


I'd add Infiltrate, probably the re-roll 1s auras, -1 damage, Gets Hot! and maybe one or two others. Ultimately I'm not sure the number of USRs matters as much as the principle of it being the best way to organise your rules.

Gert wrote:People have made some good points in regards to USRs but for me it boils down to this:
The rules for the game (e.g. turns, phases, how to play the game) should be in the BRB.
The rules for my army (e.g. special rules, weapon rules) should be in my Codex.
I shouldn't have to jump between a BRB and a Codex to find out what unit X's ability does.
My biggest bugbear about 30k is that I need 3 books to play a Legion. It's why I prefer playing Militia, it's all mostly contained within one book.


But you already have rules split across multiple books. The rules for Aircraft may not apply to your army but they're in the BRB, for example. 9th is already well on its way to having more non-Codex supplements than any other edition. The best way to manage rules is digitally, but GW are at least 10 years behind the curve on that one. If that doesn't happen then the best way is through USRs, for all the reasons I previously described. You can also easily reprint the rules text for USRs in a unit's entry and in the Codex itself so everything remains self-contained. The major advantage of USRs is they give a common ground for everyone and aid communication. They also prevent really stupid scenarios like we saw with SoB where they had a -1 damage rule that didn't specify "to a minimum of 1 damage". USRs really are all-win, if managed properly.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/20 13:13:44


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 vipoid wrote:
What about auras? Particularly the common ones like reroll 1s to hit? Do you think they can be made into universal rules? (Personally, I'd much prefer to just scrap the damn things but it seems GW is still in love with them.)
Every day I've been thinking about 40k rules issues whilst out walking (most people listen to music - I rewrite rules! ).

So far I've got a spreadsheet where I've just written down every idea that's popped into my head. I'm almost at 200 lines, some being just names of rules, some being more detailed.

For example, "Insane Durability (X) - Reduces all Damage suffered by the value in the parentheses (to a min of 1?)", and "Unnatural Toughness (X) - Cannot be wounded by a result higher/lower than the value in parentheses". Stuff like that.

When it comes to Auras I want granularity, uniformity, and stratification. Auras right now as they are do not scale, in the sense that any aura is an aura. This means that rules can treat auras in a different way, when really they shouldn't. This becomes especially apparent when you have something that shuts down an Aura, but does that make sense? Some Auras come from psychic abilities, others from technology. Why should they all be treated the same? By the same token, there should be commonality.

For that reason I would divide Auras into 4 groups - Command Auras (eg. a Captain Auras), Psychic Auras (eg. Psychic Fortress), Technological Auras (eg. Kustom Force Field) and the fourth one is "Fear Auras" but in truth I haven't thought that one though. This would allow for simple rules interactions allowing for scalable and specific abilities (ie. some Necron ability that shuts down Technological Auras, or a Cullexus that shuts down Psychic Auras). And with the inclusion of USRs, you could do something, for example, with a Space Marine Captain:

Command Aura (6) - Keen Tactician

So it's a Command Aura, as defined in the rules as applying to units with the 'Core' Keyword, has a radius of 6", and when looking up the Keen Tactician USR, you find it is "Provides re-rolls of 1's To Hit".

Again, just pulling it (and specific names) out of almost nothing, but that's the way I'd put it.

 Blackie wrote:
They could simply write all the USR a unit has in its datasheet, in full.
That would defeat the purpose of USRs. The whole point is to compress the rules by reducing instances of the same rule being repeated over and over. Having a central source - hence UNIVERSAL special rules - in each 'Dex would mostly achieve this goal.



Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/20 13:23:03


Post by: Gert


Slipspace wrote:
But you already have rules split across multiple books. The rules for Aircraft may not apply to your army but they're in the BRB, for example.

Yet those are not special rules or army rules, they're core rules of the game. Are SM the only army with Flyers? No, nearly every single army in the game has Flyers just like they all have Infantry, Tanks, Characters and Monsters. Those are "how to play the game" rules which should be in the BRB.

9th is already well on its way to having more non-Codex supplements than any other edition.

Which doesn't matter unless you are either playing with all those supplements or have a need to know every single rule in the game for some reason.

The best way to manage rules is digitally, but GW are at least 10 years behind the curve on that one. If that doesn't happen then the best way is through USRs, for all the reasons I previously described. You can also easily reprint the rules text for USRs in a unit's entry and in the Codex itself so everything remains self-contained. The major advantage of USRs is they give a common ground for everyone and aid communication. They also prevent really stupid scenarios like we saw with SoB where they had a -1 damage rule that didn't specify "to a minimum of 1 damage". USRs really are all-win, if managed properly.

Well that's the caveat, isn't it? It's only good if it's managed well. I'd rather leave things the way they are and keep all my army-specific and special rules in my Codex than rely on USRs being "managed properly".


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/20 13:29:50


Post by: Blackie


 H.B.M.C. wrote:


 Blackie wrote:
They could simply write all the USR a unit has in its datasheet, in full.
That would defeat the purpose of USRs. The whole point is to compress the rules by reducing instances of the same rule being repeated over and over. Having a central source - hence UNIVERSAL special rules - in each 'Dex would mostly achieve this goal.



I disagree. USRs main advantage is sharing the same name for the same rule for everyone. The advantage is that things are easier to remember and communication between players is simpler. Having to cross-reference isn't an advantage. And yes it takes time to remember the USRs without cross-referencing, I had to cross-reference for several games before remembering without mistakes the current morale rules for the orks, or all the Space Marines/Space Wolves ones and I hate that I have several army rules scattered between the main SM book and the SW supplement. I wouldn't want to do it for even more rules.

An ideal datasheet would have anything that a player needs to know about that unit in that specific page.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/20 13:29:57


Post by: Slipspace


 Gert wrote:


Well that's the caveat, isn't it? It's only good if it's managed well. I'd rather leave things the way they are and keep all my army-specific and special rules in my Codex than rely on USRs being "managed properly".


Why? Pretty much every other wargame and card game on the planet manages to do it properly. I assume nobody here's under the impression we're likely to get GW to actually change their approach so all we can ever do is propose and discuss alternatives in situations like this, without any real possibility of them happening in the near future. Doesn't change the fact it would still be a better way to organise the game.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/20 13:30:12


Post by: H.B.M.C.


"It might be difficult, so let's not try!" is not a compelling argument.

 Blackie wrote:
I disagree. USRs main advantage is sharing the same name for the same rule for everyone. The advantage is that things are easier to remember and communication between players is simpler. Having to cross-reference isn't an advantage. And yes it takes time to remember the USRs without cross-referencing, I had to cross-reference for several games before remembering without mistakes the current morale rules for the orks, or all the Space Marines/Space Wolves ones and I hate that I have several army rules scattered between the main SM book and the SW supplement. I wouldn't want to do it for even more rules.
Again you talk of cross-referencing, as if looking at a different page in the same book was an insurmountable task, or a grand inconvenience that will suck time away from the game. If the back two pages of every Codex (and, yes, Codex Supplement) was the same USRs that are in the core rulebook this would never be a problem.

 Blackie wrote:
An ideal datasheet would have anything that a player needs to know about that unit in that specific page.
It's a waste of page space, and it's the chief reason why fluff in Codices is decreasing.





Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/20 13:33:01


Post by: Gert


Let's agree to disagree.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/20 13:37:31


Post by: Slipspace


 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
They could simply write all the USR a unit has in its datasheet, in full.
That would defeat the purpose of USRs. The whole point is to compress the rules by reducing instances of the same rule being repeated over and over. Having a central source - hence UNIVERSAL special rules - in each 'Dex would mostly achieve this goal.



I don't fully agree. MtG does a good job with this. Where there's space they'll write out the full rule for a USR on the card. If not, they'll just use the bolded keyword. It doesn't have to be an either/or thing. You can combine multiple approaches if you need to and if it makes sense.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/20 14:07:37


Post by: Eldarsif


I am personally just a fan of having the rule on the datasheet and be done with it. I hated nothing more than in previous editions to cross-reference between the codex and rule book, especially since some USR were sometimes codex specific and I only encountered them on specific armies, making the USR feel much like a codex specific thing either way.

However, it would be nice to have a lexicon in the rulebook where you get default names for types of rules. They kind of did that with the new Ward rule in AoS 3.0 All the tomes have their own version of a Ward rule, but in general they are referred to as a Ward Rule. In other words, the BRB would have a lexicon for effects, but not detailed listing of codex specific effects.

Again you talk of cross-referencing, as if looking at a different page in the same book was an insurmountable task, or a grand inconvenience that will suck time away from the game. If the back two pages of every Codex (and, yes, Codex Supplement) was the same USRs that are in the core rulebook this would never be a problem.


Not insurmountable, just drags the gameplay way too much in a lot of games I've had. Because if people remember there are a few USR-type rules in each codex already and with most players not being some pro tourney wizard they are very likely to check up on the rule again and again to remind them that they are not misreading something which will add up in a lot of games.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/20 14:09:46


Post by: Daedalus81


Having a USR of 'Skilled Bolter Dude' for Rubrics and Marines means I have to look up the rule and its boring. Malicious volleys just makes it feel different and I think that matters to a lot of WH players. Same with 'Ardent Automata' instead of 'Steadfast' or 'Immune to Morale'.

Same thing with a Tellyporta. It just says so much more about the narrative of Orks than 'Deepstrike'.

Now HBMC makes a good point about loss of fluff, but most datasheets are weapons instead of rules and I really like a useful datasheet. There's a lot of give and take and I don't have any good answers. All I know is the datasheets work well for me.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/20 14:13:54


Post by: Eldarsif


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Having a USR of 'Skilled Bolter Dude' for Rubrics and Marines means I have to look up the rule and its boring. Malicious volleys just makes it feel different and I think that matters to a lot of WH players. Same with 'Ardent Automata' instead of 'Steadfast' or 'Immune to Morale'.

Same thing with a Tellyporta. It just says so much more about the narrative of Orks than 'Deepstrike'.


I do agree with this now that you mention it. Disgustingly resilient gets a lot more ominous and fun when people talk about it instead of some "Hard Resist" ability. In that way the new format is much more meaningful and fun lorewise.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/20 14:18:57


Post by: Sim-Life


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Having a USR of 'Skilled Bolter Dude' for Rubrics and Marines means I have to look up the rule and its boring. Malicious volleys just makes it feel different and I think that matters to a lot of WH players. Same with 'Ardent Automata' instead of 'Steadfast' or 'Immune to Morale'.

Same thing with a Tellyporta. It just says so much more about the narrative of Orks than 'Deepstrike'.

Now HBMC makes a good point about loss of fluff, but most datasheets are weapons instead of rules and I really like a useful datasheet. There's a lot of give and take and I don't have any good answers. All I know is the datasheets work well for me.


If that were true people would refer to Feel No Pain and Deep Strike as their bespoke names. Which they don't.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/20 14:23:41


Post by: Gert


 Sim-Life wrote:
If that were true people would refer to Feel No Pain and Deep Strike as their bespoke names. Which they don't.

A statement which you can't back up nor can anyone refute with any sort of hard data.
I mean it's already wrong because when I deploy my Deathwatch via the Teleport Strat, I say "Where we droppin bois?" then plop them on the table.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/20 14:25:52


Post by: Slipspace


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Having a USR of 'Skilled Bolter Dude' for Rubrics and Marines means I have to look up the rule and its boring. Malicious volleys just makes it feel different and I think that matters to a lot of WH players. Same with 'Ardent Automata' instead of 'Steadfast' or 'Immune to Morale'.

Same thing with a Tellyporta. It just says so much more about the narrative of Orks than 'Deepstrike'.

Now HBMC makes a good point about loss of fluff, but most datasheets are weapons instead of rules and I really like a useful datasheet. There's a lot of give and take and I don't have any good answers. All I know is the datasheets work well for me.


Firstly, there are ways around that, by including a fluff-based name as well as the USR, or improving the fluff content in recent Codices.

That aside, I don't really get why you're so concerned about the name of a rule when surely the most important thing is how the unit is represented on the tabletop. I want my unit to operate how it should according to the fluff. The name of the rule isn't nearly as important as the effect it has, unless you're in the habit of just shouting the names of rules at each other rather than playing the game. I didn't see anyone complaining in previous editions that Blood Angels, Tau and Eldar all had troops that could Deep Strike using various different means.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/20 14:32:56


Post by: Ventus


 Gert wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
If that were true people would refer to Feel No Pain and Deep Strike as their bespoke names. Which they don't.

A statement which you can't back up nor can anyone refute with any sort of hard data.
I mean it's already wrong because when I deploy my Deathwatch via the Teleport Strat, I say "Where we droppin bois?" then plop them on the table.


This is a reply to an opinion that is even less data-based, existing purely in imagination land. Virtually nothing about this entire thread is data-based by the very nature of the content being argued. And I think you know full well that the term deep strike is still ubiquitous in the hobby.

Why even make this post.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/20 14:36:03


Post by: Daedalus81


 Sim-Life wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Having a USR of 'Skilled Bolter Dude' for Rubrics and Marines means I have to look up the rule and its boring. Malicious volleys just makes it feel different and I think that matters to a lot of WH players. Same with 'Ardent Automata' instead of 'Steadfast' or 'Immune to Morale'.

Same thing with a Tellyporta. It just says so much more about the narrative of Orks than 'Deepstrike'.

Now HBMC makes a good point about loss of fluff, but most datasheets are weapons instead of rules and I really like a useful datasheet. There's a lot of give and take and I don't have any good answers. All I know is the datasheets work well for me.


If that were true people would refer to Feel No Pain and Deep Strike as their bespoke names. Which they don't.


There's a difference between what happens on the table and how you process the background of your army. I'm never going to say 'Ardent Automata' and I'll always say they're just immune to morale. This is in lieu of telling my opponent that they're 'Steadfast' and then they may have to look that up if they don't remember or we go full circle and I just tell them 'immune to morale'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slipspace wrote:


Firstly, there are ways around that, by including a fluff-based name as well as the USR, or improving the fluff content in recent Codices.

That aside, I don't really get why you're so concerned about the name of a rule when surely the most important thing is how the unit is represented on the tabletop. I want my unit to operate how it should according to the fluff. The name of the rule isn't nearly as important as the effect it has, unless you're in the habit of just shouting the names of rules at each other rather than playing the game. I didn't see anyone complaining in previous editions that Blood Angels, Tau and Eldar all had troops that could Deep Strike using various different means.


I'm not truly concerned. I see both sides. For me it's just easier to have the rule on the datasheet regardless of the name and be able to just state what it does rather than reference it in any way to a name or USR.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/20 14:56:13


Post by: the_scotsman


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Having a USR of 'Skilled Bolter Dude' for Rubrics and Marines means I have to look up the rule and its boring. Malicious volleys just makes it feel different and I think that matters to a lot of WH players. Same with 'Ardent Automata' instead of 'Steadfast' or 'Immune to Morale'.

Same thing with a Tellyporta. It just says so much more about the narrative of Orks than 'Deepstrike'.

Now HBMC makes a good point about loss of fluff, but most datasheets are weapons instead of rules and I really like a useful datasheet. There's a lot of give and take and I don't have any good answers. All I know is the datasheets work well for me.


You know, and I'm just spitballing here, but what they could do to preserve that fluff is to have the universal rules on the datasheet - you know, where the crunchy-crunch lives, and they could expand that little two-sentence fluff blurb they put in describing the unit out to, I don't know lets get crazy and say a WHOLE PAGE for each unit! Describing it, talking about its weapons and its abilities how they employ on the battlefield, maybe even include a piece of concept art instead of the photograph of the model and show what it looks like fully immersed in the world of warhammer 40,000...I'll bet a young reader would really be able to pore over the detail you'd be able to add with that kind of description, and when they use the USR Deep Strike on their tempestus scions they'd be able to imagine the advanced grav-chutes deploying them to their destination because they'd read that long involved fluff description. And, as a little bonus, the rules for the game could stay concise, readable, and clear without GW having to throw in purple prose descriptions in the middle of abilities, or making abilities with names so long that they're difficult to pronounce on the tabletop - like I could just say "Fearless" to my opponent instead of "ardent automata".

Wild idea, I know, crazy, obviously GW would never do something like this for decades and decades and get 100% all of their longtime lore fans hooked into the feel and the game world by doing so.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/20 14:58:34


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Having a USR of 'Skilled Bolter Dude' for Rubrics and Marines means I have to look up the rule and its boring. Malicious volleys just makes it feel different and I think that matters to a lot of WH players. Same with 'Ardent Automata' instead of 'Steadfast' or 'Immune to Morale'.

Same thing with a Tellyporta. It just says so much more about the narrative of Orks than 'Deepstrike'.

Now HBMC makes a good point about loss of fluff, but most datasheets are weapons instead of rules and I really like a useful datasheet. There's a lot of give and take and I don't have any good answers. All I know is the datasheets work well for me.




Rubric Marines
Skilled Bolter Dude Malicious Volleys : This unit can bla bla bla...


Just have rules written like this on the datasheet if you think the fluff name should be part of the rules.

Personally, i think the fluff names don't need to be in the datasheet, you know from reading the fluff of your army that orks use tellyporta instead of Teleportariums or Webway infiltrations



Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/20 15:03:34


Post by: vict0988


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Same thing with a Tellyporta. It just says so much more about the narrative of Orks than 'Deepstrike'.

No, it does not. The lore should be explained in the lore section of the codex, not in the datasheet.
 Gert wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
If that were true people would refer to Feel No Pain and Deep Strike as their bespoke names. Which they don't.

A statement which you can't back up nor can anyone refute with any sort of hard data.
I mean it's already wrong because when I deploy my Deathwatch via the Teleport Strat, I say "Where we droppin bois?" then plop them on the table.

Why do rules even have names? Why say that you are using your Smite psychic power you can just make fart noises at different pitches to reveal which psychic power you are attempting to manifest.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/20 15:10:31


Post by: Daedalus81


 the_scotsman wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Having a USR of 'Skilled Bolter Dude' for Rubrics and Marines means I have to look up the rule and its boring. Malicious volleys just makes it feel different and I think that matters to a lot of WH players. Same with 'Ardent Automata' instead of 'Steadfast' or 'Immune to Morale'.

Same thing with a Tellyporta. It just says so much more about the narrative of Orks than 'Deepstrike'.

Now HBMC makes a good point about loss of fluff, but most datasheets are weapons instead of rules and I really like a useful datasheet. There's a lot of give and take and I don't have any good answers. All I know is the datasheets work well for me.


You know, and I'm just spitballing here, but what they could do to preserve that fluff is to have the universal rules on the datasheet - you know, where the crunchy-crunch lives, and they could expand that little two-sentence fluff blurb they put in describing the unit out to, I don't know lets get crazy and say a WHOLE PAGE for each unit! Describing it, talking about its weapons and its abilities how they employ on the battlefield, maybe even include a piece of concept art instead of the photograph of the model and show what it looks like fully immersed in the world of warhammer 40,000...I'll bet a young reader would really be able to pore over the detail you'd be able to add with that kind of description, and when they use the USR Deep Strike on their tempestus scions they'd be able to imagine the advanced grav-chutes deploying them to their destination because they'd read that long involved fluff description. And, as a little bonus, the rules for the game could stay concise, readable, and clear without GW having to throw in purple prose descriptions in the middle of abilities, or making abilities with names so long that they're difficult to pronounce on the tabletop - like I could just say "Fearless" to my opponent instead of "ardent automata".

Wild idea, I know, crazy, obviously GW would never do something like this for decades and decades and get 100% all of their longtime lore fans hooked into the feel and the game world by doing so.


Understood.

I don't think I'm particularly against USR nor am I for them. I just don't see a quality of life improvement, because I am just giving rules text from the datasheet directly.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/20 15:11:43


Post by: Gert


 vict0988 wrote:
Why do rules even have names? Why say that you are using your Smite psychic power you can just make fart noises at different pitches to reveal which psychic power you are attempting to manifest.

If you don't have different magic effects prepared then I'm sorry but you have lost 40k.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/20 15:14:12


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 vict0988 wrote:

Why do rules even have names? Why say that you are using your Smite psychic power you can just make fart noises at different pitches to reveal which psychic power you are attempting to manifest.


To be fair, with most witchfire psychic power, just letting the caster do an extra smite would give pretty much the same outcome


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/20 15:18:25


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Ventus wrote:
Why even make this post.
Because Gert, for whatever reason, seems weirdly intent on shooting down any proposed idea as either being "two difficult" or "because it wouldn't work".

"Don't bring me problems, bring me solutions!"

He's only made it half-way through that phrase so far.



Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/20 15:37:51


Post by: vipoid


 the_scotsman wrote:

You know, and I'm just spitballing here, but what they could do to preserve that fluff is to have the universal rules on the datasheet - you know, where the crunchy-crunch lives, and they could expand that little two-sentence fluff blurb they put in describing the unit out to, I don't know lets get crazy and say a WHOLE PAGE for each unit! Describing it, talking about its weapons and its abilities how they employ on the battlefield, maybe even include a piece of concept art instead of the photograph of the model and show what it looks like fully immersed in the world of warhammer 40,000...I'll bet a young reader would really be able to pore over the detail you'd be able to add with that kind of description, and when they use the USR Deep Strike on their tempestus scions they'd be able to imagine the advanced grav-chutes deploying them to their destination because they'd read that long involved fluff description. And, as a little bonus, the rules for the game could stay concise, readable, and clear without GW having to throw in purple prose descriptions in the middle of abilities, or making abilities with names so long that they're difficult to pronounce on the tabletop - like I could just say "Fearless" to my opponent instead of "ardent automata".

Wild idea, I know, crazy, obviously GW would never do something like this for decades and decades and get 100% all of their longtime lore fans hooked into the feel and the game world by doing so.


If GW was ever to implement this revolutionary idea, do you think there's any possibility they might use black and white pictures for the images (instead of either paintings or photographs)?

Each to their own but I can't say I've been particularly thrilled by the pictures in recent books. Most of them look like someone drank some watercolours and then threw up onto a moving train.


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Spoiler:
Every day I've been thinking about 40k rules issues whilst out walking (most people listen to music - I rewrite rules! ).

So far I've got a spreadsheet where I've just written down every idea that's popped into my head. I'm almost at 200 lines, some being just names of rules, some being more detailed.

For example, "Insane Durability (X) - Reduces all Damage suffered by the value in the parentheses (to a min of 1?)", and "Unnatural Toughness (X) - Cannot be wounded by a result higher/lower than the value in parentheses". Stuff like that.

When it comes to Auras I want granularity, uniformity, and stratification. Auras right now as they are do not scale, in the sense that any aura is an aura. This means that rules can treat auras in a different way, when really they shouldn't. This becomes especially apparent when you have something that shuts down an Aura, but does that make sense? Some Auras come from psychic abilities, others from technology. Why should they all be treated the same? By the same token, there should be commonality.

For that reason I would divide Auras into 4 groups - Command Auras (eg. a Captain Auras), Psychic Auras (eg. Psychic Fortress), Technological Auras (eg. Kustom Force Field) and the fourth one is "Fear Auras" but in truth I haven't thought that one though. This would allow for simple rules interactions allowing for scalable and specific abilities (ie. some Necron ability that shuts down Technological Auras, or a Cullexus that shuts down Psychic Auras). And with the inclusion of USRs, you could do something, for example, with a Space Marine Captain:

Command Aura (6) - Keen Tactician

So it's a Command Aura, as defined in the rules as applying to units with the 'Core' Keyword, has a radius of 6", and when looking up the Keen Tactician USR, you find it is "Provides re-rolls of 1's To Hit".

Again, just pulling it (and specific names) out of almost nothing, but that's the way I'd put it.



Thanks for getting back to me. I hadn't considered the aspect of splitting auras based on how they are generated. It's definitely a neat idea.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/20 16:16:58


Post by: catbarf


 Daedalus81 wrote:
Having a USR of 'Skilled Bolter Dude' for Rubrics and Marines means I have to look up the rule and its boring. Malicious volleys just makes it feel different and I think that matters to a lot of WH players. Same with 'Ardent Automata' instead of 'Steadfast' or 'Immune to Morale'.

Same thing with a Tellyporta. It just says so much more about the narrative of Orks than 'Deepstrike'.


Tellyporta
Ork Meks are capable of building short-distance teleportation beacons, and guard the secrets of their construction- whether this is out of simple jealousy or because they themselves don't quite know how it works is a mystery to Imperial scientists.
This unit has the Deep Strike USR.

This was already a solved problem two decades ago. If you don't want to have to look up what Deep Strike means, you can even reproduce the rules text in the entry as well.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/20 17:01:52


Post by: Daedalus81


 catbarf wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Having a USR of 'Skilled Bolter Dude' for Rubrics and Marines means I have to look up the rule and its boring. Malicious volleys just makes it feel different and I think that matters to a lot of WH players. Same with 'Ardent Automata' instead of 'Steadfast' or 'Immune to Morale'.

Same thing with a Tellyporta. It just says so much more about the narrative of Orks than 'Deepstrike'.


Tellyporta
Ork Meks are capable of building short-distance teleportation beacons, and guard the secrets of their construction- whether this is out of simple jealousy or because they themselves don't quite know how it works is a mystery to Imperial scientists.
This unit has the Deep Strike USR.

This was already a solved problem two decades ago. If you don't want to have to look up what Deep Strike means, you can even reproduce the rules text in the entry as well.


But then what problem are we solving?

If it's a new player then they have to go look up the rule to understand the datasheet.
If it's an old player it doesn't seem to make a difference.

And I'm not saying they shouldn't do that - I'm just having a hard time getting my brain to go along. Why not just have everything on the datasheet?

I think what people are asking for is that I hand you my army list and it says:

Unit 1 - stuff
USR: Deepstrike, Steadfast

Unit 2 - stuff
USR: Resolute, Unbreakable

etc etc

Then at that point you don't need my book to interpret the list.



Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/20 17:19:05


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 Daedalus81 wrote:

But then what problem are we solving?

If it's a new player then they have to go look up the rule to understand the datasheet.
If it's an old player it doesn't seem to make a difference.

And I'm not saying they shouldn't do that - I'm just having a hard time getting my brain to go along. Why not just have everything on the datasheet?

I think what people are asking for is that I hand you my army list and it says:

Unit 1 - stuff
USR: Deepstrike, Steadfast

Unit 2 - stuff
USR: Resolute, Unbreakable

etc etc

Then at that point you don't need my book to interpret the list.



Multiple problems would be solved. But before i list them , i'll specify that i would apply USR like MTG does.
So the datasheet would have a "table" with these informations :
USR Name (USR variable)fluff name : <Rules description>.

This accomplishes many things.

First, you don't need to reference another source for the rules, theyre already on your datasheet (the complete USR list should still be present outside datasheets, problably in the BRB).

Second, new players would learn through repetition what the rules do, even for other armies. Example : if a new player plays Deathguard and knows that his poxwalkers have the Fearless USR, when a Thousand Sons players tells him his Rubrics are Fearless, he'll know what it means instantly.

Thirdly (and most importantly), it opens up cleaner rules writing and more options in the long run. Now you could feasibly have certain bespoke abilities that reference USR, lets say Nightlords get a specific psychic power that prevented a unit from being immune to morale. Instead of needing to write something like "Target unit is unaffected by any abilities that lets them automatically pass morale/combat attrition tests", you could simply have it say "Target unit loses Fearless". Adding USR variables also helps for cleaner rules writing, now instead of giving the Callidus assassin an extra rule that lets her deepstrike at 9-D6", just give her "Deepstrike (9-D6")" or you could give GSG Deepstrike(8") or add a brand new "ambush shooting unit" with Deepstrike (12"), to signify that its not meant to charge out of deepstrike but to shoot instead.



As for "why not have everything on the datasheet".. well. yes? thats kinda what we've been suggesting in addition to giving stuff names that are universal





Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/20 17:42:52


Post by: drbored


The great thing is that GW already does this in other games. The Kill Team Core Rulebook has all of the USRs (and they are indeed USRs) in the back, using (x) to denote variables and listing all of the effects in nice, neat, alphabetical order. You do have to reference the USRs, since they don't list all the effects on the datacards, which probably saves space and ink, but whatever.

They do something similar for Terrain in 40k, giving terrain keywords like 'Defensible' and 'Light Cover' and 'Obscuring' and whatnot to help everyone at the table understand what all the terrain does in a language that every terrain piece shares. It's not like Imperium Terrain has "Defensible In His Holy Name" and Eldar cover has "Superior Defensibility" and Ork terrain has "ROIGHT PROPAH DEFENSY". No matter what faction it is, it's the same keywords, which, lo and behold, helps speed the game up quite a bit.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/20 18:02:54


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Daedalus81 wrote:
...But then what problem are we solving?...


The quality-of-life improvement we're making with USRs is that if I haven't read your Codex and you tell me "oh, these guys have Deep Strike" I know what that means, instead of needing to read through and parse a paragraph of text (when I may be tired and trying to relax, or I may be just trying to play a game and have fun) to try and figure out whether your Deep Strike is the same as my Deep Strike or if it's one of a dozen slight variations on Deep Strike GW wrote for the sake of making sure everyone's Deep Strike is just a little bit different from everyone else's. If I've read every Codex I'll know the slight variations, yes, and if I'm completely brand-new I'll need to read it anyway, yes, but standardization helps a lot with getting people across that gap from "not knowing how everything works" to "knowing how everything works" by making the intermediate stage of only knowing how some things work shorter and less painful.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/20 18:10:17


Post by: Eldarsif


The quality-of-life improvement we're making with USRs is that if I haven't read your Codex and you tell me "oh, these guys have Deep Strike" I know what that means, instead of needing to read through and parse a paragraph of text (when I may be tired and trying to relax, or I may be just trying to play a game and have fun)


Isn't it already like that though? The playerbase has a very shared lexicon that we already use. I am not against codifying a lexicon btw, in case of new players.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/20 18:12:56


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 Eldarsif wrote:
The quality-of-life improvement we're making with USRs is that if I haven't read your Codex and you tell me "oh, these guys have Deep Strike" I know what that means, instead of needing to read through and parse a paragraph of text (when I may be tired and trying to relax, or I may be just trying to play a game and have fun)


Isn't it already like that though? The playerbase has a very shared lexicon that we already use. I am not against codifying a lexicon btw, in case of new players.


Thats exactly why GW should bring them back (and use them in a smart way)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desire_path

same concept as this. If your playerbase already ignores the fluff names and calls it "Deepstrike" for convenience, you should really rename it to "Deepstrike" everywhere


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/20 18:20:31


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Eldarsif wrote:
The quality-of-life improvement we're making with USRs is that if I haven't read your Codex and you tell me "oh, these guys have Deep Strike" I know what that means, instead of needing to read through and parse a paragraph of text (when I may be tired and trying to relax, or I may be just trying to play a game and have fun)


Isn't it already like that though? The playerbase has a very shared lexicon that we already use. I am not against codifying a lexicon btw, in case of new players.


Sort of, among players, but I've seen cases where we call a rule the same thing as another one that's written slightly differently.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 Eldarsif wrote:
The quality-of-life improvement we're making with USRs is that if I haven't read your Codex and you tell me "oh, these guys have Deep Strike" I know what that means, instead of needing to read through and parse a paragraph of text (when I may be tired and trying to relax, or I may be just trying to play a game and have fun)


Isn't it already like that though? The playerbase has a very shared lexicon that we already use. I am not against codifying a lexicon btw, in case of new players.


Thats exactly why GW should bring them back (and use them in a smart way)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desire_path

same concept as this. If your playerbase already ignores the fluff names and calls it "Deepstrike" for convenience, you should really rename it to "Deepstrike" everywhere


If they had any interest in doing that they wouldn't have called everything in Kill Team game-specific terms instead of calling anything what it actually is. ("Killzone" for "table" or "battlefield", "turning point" for "turn", etc.) Or renamed a bunch of armies something they can trademark instead of calling them what we call them.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/20 18:22:46


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 AnomanderRake wrote:

If they had any interest in doing that they wouldn't have called everything in Kill Team game-specific terms instead of calling anything what it actually is. ("Killzone" for "table" or "battlefield", "turning point" for "turn", etc.) Or renamed a bunch of armies something they can trademark instead of calling them what we call them.


Why is GW's interest relevant when explaining what I would do if i was designing this aspect of a game?


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/20 18:26:11


Post by: AnomanderRake


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:

If they had any interest in doing that they wouldn't have called everything in Kill Team game-specific terms instead of calling anything what it actually is. ("Killzone" for "table" or "battlefield", "turning point" for "turn", etc.) Or renamed a bunch of armies something they can trademark instead of calling them what we call them.


Why is GW's interest relevant when explaining what I would do if i was designing this aspect of a game?


I'm describing the fact that GW's standard design practice today is to do the exact opposite of that, which is probably a better explanation for why we don't have USRs than any specific properties of whether USRs are a good or bad idea.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/20 18:31:00


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 AnomanderRake wrote:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:

If they had any interest in doing that they wouldn't have called everything in Kill Team game-specific terms instead of calling anything what it actually is. ("Killzone" for "table" or "battlefield", "turning point" for "turn", etc.) Or renamed a bunch of armies something they can trademark instead of calling them what we call them.


Why is GW's interest relevant when explaining what I would do if i was designing this aspect of a game?


I'm describing the fact that GW's standard design practice today is to do the exact opposite of that, which is probably a better explanation for why we don't have USRs than any specific properties of whether USRs are a good or bad idea.


Oh, yeah, 100%. I just wish the rules were written with a more modern flair tbh.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/20 18:44:53


Post by: Galas


As long as the full or nearly the full rules of a unit are in his datasheet I cannot care more about how they do it.


I hate old rules of "This model has this 3 options for weapons" ok I'm flipping to the armory to see the stats of the weapons and chose what I want "Oh look each weapon has 1-2 USR to look for how cool".

Thats stupid. The only rules I accept to not be on the datasheet of every model are the general rules of a faction or subfaction like Angels of Death because those apply to all my army so I don't need to reference them when chosing what units to put on my list or each time I'm using a unit.

Give me the stats, the weapons options, the weapons profiles and rules and effects and the full rules of a unit in his datasheet. I don't care if you put it "Come from the shadows: this unit has deepstrike: it can enter from reservers blablabla"


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/20 18:54:15


Post by: the_scotsman


It's also worth mentioning that USRs allow mechanics to be...at least in theory...updated instantly when a change is introduced if the authors want to update everything in the game.

If, for example, the game designers initially decided that for some reason only infantry bikes cavalry and...certain, randomly determined walkers should get subfaction traits, but that it would be too overpowered or too difficult to come up with traits that applied to tanks...

and then they decided, no, it's stupid for tanks to not get traits, we should make every trait have ONE rule for infantry and ONE rule for tanks, that's the way to do it!

And then they decided no, actually, it is ok if some subfactions just have tanks that are...marginally better at close combat, and that subfaction just isnt particularly great at doing tanks, just like other subfactions might not be partiuclarly great at doing flyers

Then with the magic of USRs, we could AVOID the situation where lets say Space marines, chaos space marines, genestealer cults and Sisters have vehicles that don't get subfaction traits while everybody else has vehicles that DO get subfaction traits. Because ideally everyone could just share one rule, that works the same for everyone, and you can update it all at once.

SEE ALSO:

-How Gets Hot weapons work, for the entire edition. Is it "on a 1 modified or unmodified, the model dies"? is it "on a 1 unmodified the model dies"? is it "on a 1 unmodified 1 mortal wound?"

-How about melta guns? Are those D6+2 in half range? Or D6, rerolling if half range?

-infiltratey-sneaky-units? Do those just...regular deep strike, or do they appear on the board during deployment anywhere they want, or do they deep strike but only within 6" of the board edge?

You'll have to VERY VERY CAREFULLY READ SPECIFICALLY YOUR DATASHEET AND NOT MAKE ASSUMPTIONS BASED ON ANYONE ELSES DATASHEET TO FIND OUT


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/20 19:05:23


Post by: VladimirHerzog


 the_scotsman wrote:
It's also worth mentioning that USRs allow mechanics to be...at least in theory...updated instantly when a change is introduced if the authors want to update everything in the game.

If, for example, the game designers initially decided that for some reason only infantry bikes cavalry and...certain, randomly determined walkers should get subfaction traits, but that it would be too overpowered or too difficult to come up with traits that applied to tanks...

and then they decided, no, it's stupid for tanks to not get traits, we should make every trait have ONE rule for infantry and ONE rule for tanks, that's the way to do it!

And then they decided no, actually, it is ok if some subfactions just have tanks that are...marginally better at close combat, and that subfaction just isnt particularly great at doing tanks, just like other subfactions might not be partiuclarly great at doing flyers

Then with the magic of USRs, we could AVOID the situation where lets say Space marines, chaos space marines, genestealer cults and Sisters have vehicles that don't get subfaction traits while everybody else has vehicles that DO get subfaction traits. Because ideally everyone could just share one rule, that works the same for everyone, and you can update it all at once.

SEE ALSO:

-How Gets Hot weapons work, for the entire edition. Is it "on a 1 modified or unmodified, the model dies"? is it "on a 1 unmodified the model dies"? is it "on a 1 unmodified 1 mortal wound?"

-How about melta guns? Are those D6+2 in half range? Or D6, rerolling if half range?

-infiltratey-sneaky-units? Do those just...regular deep strike, or do they appear on the board during deployment anywhere they want, or do they deep strike but only within 6" of the board edge?

You'll have to VERY VERY CAREFULLY READ SPECIFICALLY YOUR DATASHEET AND NOT MAKE ASSUMPTIONS BASED ON ANYONE ELSES DATASHEET TO FIND OUT


Don't get me started on the Chaos Land Raider one shotting itself if its pintle mounted plasma rolls a 1....


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/20 19:13:29


Post by: the_scotsman


 VladimirHerzog wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
It's also worth mentioning that USRs allow mechanics to be...at least in theory...updated instantly when a change is introduced if the authors want to update everything in the game.

If, for example, the game designers initially decided that for some reason only infantry bikes cavalry and...certain, randomly determined walkers should get subfaction traits, but that it would be too overpowered or too difficult to come up with traits that applied to tanks...

and then they decided, no, it's stupid for tanks to not get traits, we should make every trait have ONE rule for infantry and ONE rule for tanks, that's the way to do it!

And then they decided no, actually, it is ok if some subfactions just have tanks that are...marginally better at close combat, and that subfaction just isnt particularly great at doing tanks, just like other subfactions might not be partiuclarly great at doing flyers

Then with the magic of USRs, we could AVOID the situation where lets say Space marines, chaos space marines, genestealer cults and Sisters have vehicles that don't get subfaction traits while everybody else has vehicles that DO get subfaction traits. Because ideally everyone could just share one rule, that works the same for everyone, and you can update it all at once.

SEE ALSO:

-How Gets Hot weapons work, for the entire edition. Is it "on a 1 modified or unmodified, the model dies"? is it "on a 1 unmodified the model dies"? is it "on a 1 unmodified 1 mortal wound?"

-How about melta guns? Are those D6+2 in half range? Or D6, rerolling if half range?

-infiltratey-sneaky-units? Do those just...regular deep strike, or do they appear on the board during deployment anywhere they want, or do they deep strike but only within 6" of the board edge?

You'll have to VERY VERY CAREFULLY READ SPECIFICALLY YOUR DATASHEET AND NOT MAKE ASSUMPTIONS BASED ON ANYONE ELSES DATASHEET TO FIND OUT


Don't get me started on the Chaos Land Raider one shotting itself if its pintle mounted plasma rolls a 1....


Oh, you mean how the NO FUN POLICE at GW got rid of my incredibly smart incredibly good khorne bezerker turn 1 charge strat with their garbage terrible FAQ that makes combi-plasma rhinos not blow themselves up 75% of the time?

More like Games DONT WORK ges-shop-o.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/20 19:16:55


Post by: The Warp Forge


 AnomanderRake wrote:
The edition wars are pretty bad right now; asking questions about "how is anyone supposed to parse 9th?" on Dakka is likely to lead to a long argument between the "9th is best edition!" crowd and "9th is worst edition!" crowd. Generally this comes in the form of making wildly different value judgements on the same facts (ex. the pace of releases is good because people get new stuff faster, or the pace of releases is bad because it makes it hard to keep up with what's going on), which means that the arguments go on and on and round in circles and never go anywhere.

I've found that except for a couple of outliers (hi PenitentJake!) the people who enjoy 9th the most are competitive players that don't mind buying models just to win/not playing models they like because they're bad, enjoy keeping up with the tournament meta, and like the move to a more deterministic game. If you're going to try and play 40k right now I'd strongly suggest doing your research ahead of time; before buying anything or making any list-building decisions watch some battle reports, read some reviews (not the GW ones where they're gushing over everything independent of whether it's crap), and look at what lists other people are building. Internal balance is worse than it's ever been, and I find the people who like 9th are very happy to steamroll you, then tell you that the game is perfect and it's your fault for buying the wrong minis.

If you just want to start playing a minis game I'd strongly suggest looking into things that aren't 40k. More so than earlier editions it's hard to drop in/drop out or otherwise play casually; you're expected to keep up with tournament play and have multiple armies so you can swap when half your stuff gets squatted to a degree that wasn't so mainstream ten or fifteen years ago.


Counterpoint from my own experiance: This is no different to any other edition, and I came in at 2007 so I have about 13-14 years of experiance and all that time the players have been no different. You netlist the same 25% of units and get told your using the wrong minis for wanting to actually enjoy the game for its lore or want a bit more variety in the lists. The playerbase has always been this toxic.

The main difference is that in 8th-9th it's a lot more transparent. Every competitive list revolves around these main factors:

- Getting the auras
- Getting The strats
- Getting the Keywords
- Getting the subfaction
Combo it all together

For what purpose? Making sure your list has as close as possible to get probability to 0% on the rolling the dice to either A) Auto-Delete units or B) Survive whats coming while you squat on an objective. At this point the competitive playebase needs to concede the fact that they're not really wanting to roll dice, they just want to get rid of that time-wasting element so they can just get on winning in their turn of the game.

That's competitive 40k in a nutshell in 9th.

For the OP: I've just had my second game of 9th a few days ago after taking a gaming break mid-8th. My Necrons Vs. DG. 1250pts. Oppnent brought Morty...

I won the game 48-38VP and I really enjoy the fact that I played to the objective and won because of that felt gratifying, espcially with a unit I could not deal with at that low of points, but I can tell you right now that I can fully sympathise with the micro-management as there's a lot more than before, espically with Stratagems. I felt as though I was shuffling a card deck than pushing models around. I will be trying 9th again as I had enjoyed the core mechasnics and enjoyed the mission I was playing

My Best Advice? You got two solutions as long as your with people who want to play the game with a similar mindset to you. 1) Play the game with a ban on stratagems. Just get rid of them and you'll find the game plays a lot, lot smoother or 2) Play OnePageRules GrimDark Future. Its fast-paced, little to no micromanagement and you can still play with the same units/models, they will just have slightly different names. Oh, and the rules are free too if your just looking for a standard game.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/20 20:17:44


Post by: jeff white


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 vipoid wrote:
What about auras? Particularly the common ones like reroll 1s to hit? Do you think they can be made into universal rules? (Personally, I'd much prefer to just scrap the damn things but it seems GW is still in love with them.)
Every day I've been thinking about 40k rules issues whilst out walking (most people listen to music - I rewrite rules! ).
Spoiler:

So far I've got a spreadsheet where I've just written down every idea that's popped into my head. I'm almost at 200 lines, some being just names of rules, some being more detailed.

For example, "Insane Durability (X) - Reduces all Damage suffered by the value in the parentheses (to a min of 1?)", and "Unnatural Toughness (X) - Cannot be wounded by a result higher/lower than the value in parentheses". Stuff like that.

When it comes to Auras I want granularity, uniformity, and stratification. Auras right now as they are do not scale, in the sense that any aura is an aura. This means that rules can treat auras in a different way, when really they shouldn't. This becomes especially apparent when you have something that shuts down an Aura, but does that make sense? Some Auras come from psychic abilities, others from technology. Why should they all be treated the same? By the same token, there should be commonality.

For that reason I would divide Auras into 4 groups - Command Auras (eg. a Captain Auras), Psychic Auras (eg. Psychic Fortress), Technological Auras (eg. Kustom Force Field) and the fourth one is "Fear Auras" but in truth I haven't thought that one though. This would allow for simple rules interactions allowing for scalable and specific abilities (ie. some Necron ability that shuts down Technological Auras, or a Cullexus that shuts down Psychic Auras). And with the inclusion of USRs, you could do something, for example, with a Space Marine Captain:

Command Aura (6) - Keen Tactician

So it's a Command Aura, as defined in the rules as applying to units with the 'Core' Keyword, has a radius of 6", and when looking up the Keen Tactician USR, you find it is "Provides re-rolls of 1's To Hit".
Spoiler:

Again, just pulling it (and specific names) out of almost nothing, but that's the way I'd put it.

 Blackie wrote:
They could simply write all the USR a unit has in its datasheet, in full.
That would defeat the purpose of USRs. The whole point is to compress the rules by reducing instances of the same rule being repeated over and over. Having a central source - hence UNIVERSAL special rules - in each 'Dex would mostly achieve this goal.



Love it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Eldarsif wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Having a USR of 'Skilled Bolter Dude' for Rubrics and Marines means I have to look up the rule and its boring. Malicious volleys just makes it feel different and I think that matters to a lot of WH players. Same with 'Ardent Automata' instead of 'Steadfast' or 'Immune to Morale'.

Same thing with a Tellyporta. It just says so much more about the narrative of Orks than 'Deepstrike'.


I do agree with this now that you mention it. Disgustingly resilient gets a lot more ominous and fun when people talk about it instead of some "Hard Resist" ability. In that way the new format is much more meaningful and fun lorewise.


But how is this lost with usr treatments of these abilities? Call it what characterises the faction, add stories for why and how things work for them, but understand that this is not proprietary. Other units can eg deep strike. Maybe they do it differently, with blinding flashes or thunderous chants, but tabletop implications are the same or similar enough to fall under a usr.

Why anyone would want to compare a war game with a card game is beyond me but I always despised mtg and most other CCGs. I am in this hobby, for reasons, and not swapping cards over twenty minute card games so why would I be interested in reproducing the mtg experience in my wargame? Rhetorical question.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 The Warp Forge wrote:
Spoiler:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
The edition wars are pretty bad right now; asking questions about "how is anyone supposed to parse 9th?" on Dakka is likely to lead to a long argument between the "9th is best edition!" crowd and "9th is worst edition!" crowd. Generally this comes in the form of making wildly different value judgements on the same facts (ex. the pace of releases is good because people get new stuff faster, or the pace of releases is bad because it makes it hard to keep up with what's going on), which means that the arguments go on and on and round in circles and never go anywhere.

I've found that except for a couple of outliers (hi PenitentJake!) the people who enjoy 9th the most are competitive players that don't mind buying models just to win/not playing models they like because they're bad, enjoy keeping up with the tournament meta, and like the move to a more deterministic game. If you're going to try and play 40k right now I'd strongly suggest doing your research ahead of time; before buying anything or making any list-building decisions watch some battle reports, read some reviews (not the GW ones where they're gushing over everything independent of whether it's crap), and look at what lists other people are building. Internal balance is worse than it's ever been, and I find the people who like 9th are very happy to steamroll you, then tell you that the game is perfect and it's your fault for buying the wrong minis.

If you just want to start playing a minis game I'd strongly suggest looking into things that aren't 40k. More so than earlier editions it's hard to drop in/drop out or otherwise play casually; you're expected to keep up with tournament play and have multiple armies so you can swap when half your stuff gets squatted to a degree that wasn't so mainstream ten or fifteen years ago.


Counterpoint from my own experiance: This is no different to any other edition, and I came in at 2007 so I have about 13-14 years of experiance and all that time the players have been no different. You netlist the same 25% of units and get told your using the wrong minis for wanting to actually enjoy the game for its lore or want a bit more variety in the lists. The playerbase has always been this toxic.

The main difference is that in 8th-9th it's a lot more transparent. Every competitive list revolves around these main factors:

- Getting the auras
- Getting The strats
- Getting the Keywords
- Getting the subfaction
Combo it all together

For what purpose? Making sure your list has as close as possible to get probability to 0% on the rolling the dice to either A) Auto-Delete units or B) Survive whats coming while you squat on an objective. At this point the competitive playebase needs to concede the fact that they're not really wanting to roll dice, they just want to get rid of that time-wasting element so they can just get on winning in their turn of the game.

That's competitive 40k in a nutshell in 9th.

For the OP: I've just had my second game of 9th a few days ago after taking a gaming break mid-8th. My Necrons Vs. DG. 1250pts. Oppnent brought Morty...

I won the game 48-38VP and I really enjoy the fact that I played to the objective and won because of that felt gratifying, espcially with a unit I could not deal with at that low of points, but I can tell you right now that I can fully sympathise with the micro-management as there's a lot more than before, espically with Stratagems. I felt as though I was shuffling a card deck than pushing models around. I will be trying 9th again as I had enjoyed the core mechasnics and enjoyed the mission I was playing

My Best Advice? You got two solutions as long as your with people who want to play the game with a similar mindset to you. 1) Play the game with a ban on stratagems. Just get rid of them and you'll find the game plays a lot, lot smoother or 2) Play OnePageRules GrimDark Future. Its fast-paced, little to no micromanagement and you can still play with the same units/models, they will just have slightly different names. Oh, and the rules are free too if your just looking for a standard game.

I played 9th a few times and didn’t use that nast and sure, outside a few awful things that still keep me from investing in books for this edition for example, it was enjoyable to learn the new system… using also very small point level forces on a large table with lots of terrain and banning named characters yada.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/20 21:21:12


Post by: The Warp Forge


 jeff white wrote:

My Best Advice? You got two solutions as long as your with people who want to play the game with a similar mindset to you. 1) Play the game with a ban on stratagems. Just get rid of them and you'll find the game plays a lot, lot smoother or 2) Play OnePageRules GrimDark Future. Its fast-paced, little to no micromanagement and you can still play with the same units/models, they will just have slightly different names. Oh, and the rules are free too if your just looking for a standard game.

I played 9th a few times and didn’t use that nast and sure, outside a few awful things that still keep me from investing in books for this edition for example, it was enjoyable to learn the new system… using also very small point level forces on a large table with lots of terrain and banning named characters yada.


I get ya! Something that I've noticed when I was playing 8th, wasn't the use, nor the volume of strats I was encountering but the timing of when to play those strats that were taxing on the mind.

The penny dropped for me when I was playting my Night Lords frequently and the "In Mindight clad" stratagem had to be played. That strat only activates when an enemy unit is targetted. Now on paper it sounds easy and simple. On the table however when folks are not used to facing NL it would be taxing as I had to eyeball my oppponent when they came to designating an enemy unit for a ranged attacked as I would have to quickly imnterject, tell them to hold as I play that strat, which is an incredibly small window otherwise the opponent would roll the to hit roll and then we play the good 'ol back and forth of "but I've rolled the dice now".

Now times that by all the strats you play and this I feel is where the crux of the argument that's taken 6-8 pages is at its climax. Everyone seems to agree that the USR's have just shifted into Strats and other areas in the codex but for most everyone can handle model datasheets, WT, Sub-Faction rules, etc.

It's the strats people have an issue with mostly. It's the fact you have to eyeball a 3 hour game for triggers to set your starts off in every individual game, not just in your turn but also in your opponents turn which is incredible taxing in a UGOIGO System. When confrnted witha USR all you had to do was ask about about it and if you had enough experiance/memorising skill, it would stick. Strats are a lot harder to keep a track of because they change each individual game depending on multiple variables (Enemy army, Terrain, mission, etc).

The Timing is what is taxing.

If I were to try and fix the start mess I wpould do either of the following:

1) Just get rid of them. You have the core rules, the codex and the subfaction (maybe FW) and that's all that's needed. It means less rules that you need to remember and rehearse and it also means you need less micro managemnt and more reliance on baord presence, your units and positioning. The game becomes more accessible to both the newcomer and the established gamer, however as many point out, strats are a thing and people grasp onto them so clutch like an very, very unhealthy addiction to certain things so this isn't likely to happen.

2) Keep the main starts in the core book (but get rid of the Morale one. Let the morale phase have an impact on the game so people have to take time to play that phase). When it comes to sub-factions, you should have a strat for one generic for the codex. One for non-named character but for any warlord in their respective sub-faction and one for every special character specific to them. These strats should only be given to Warlords so you can't spam multiple strats in a phase/turn. This then brings back the original concept of the Stratagem where it's meant to be a turning point of the game as there will be less available but something there to give flavour, like how the intent was obviously pilfered to be more accessible/flexible Feats in Warmachine/Hordes.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/20 21:42:41


Post by: jeff white


Plus, not serious about mastering this edition, but with others who are and have, the game seems like it can easily become one of trap the noob. As you say, the situational character of stratagems means that one can set up the situation for a less astute opponent to fall into, whereas if I am not so well studied, I get trapped with the gotcha whombocombos… ouch.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/20 22:21:49


Post by: The Warp Forge


Yeah, Gotcha moments have been prevalent within 40k for every edition biut Strats have only amplified and made this issue the most transparent imo, because they are triggers. It might work in a CCG/TCG environment but on a tabletop game where there is considerable more time investment, all it really does is sour the mood and makes a bad atmosphere.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/20 23:12:23


Post by: Hecaton


 Blackie wrote:

We disagree about internal balancing in 9th edition. I think that 90%+ of the units in 9th codexes are at least playable.


Every unit is playable. That's a meaningless statement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 The Warp Forge wrote:
Yeah, Gotcha moments have been prevalent within 40k for every edition biut Strats have only amplified and made this issue the most transparent imo, because they are triggers. It might work in a CCG/TCG environment but on a tabletop game where there is considerable more time investment, all it really does is sour the mood and makes a bad atmosphere.


Well, there are miniature games designed around this idea (ASOIAF, for example) but 40k really isn't.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/21 07:50:02


Post by: a_typical_hero


Hecaton wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
We disagree about internal balancing in 9th edition. I think that 90%+ of the units in 9th codexes are at least playable.
Every unit is playable. That's a meaningless statement.
Nah, you are just being needlessly semantic here. In the spirit of the topic being discussed, Blackie obviously meant that "90%+ of the units" can be played from the codex without automatically losing you the game. The remaining 10% is stuff like SM Servitors, Fortifications, Dhrukari Beast squads and so on.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/21 08:01:02


Post by: Sunno


Iv been looking into 40K as an alternative side game to play. I love the setting, lore and models but iv never played it beyond some silly games at friends house. My observations are:

40K on the tabletop is very simple to play. It’s the literal embodiment of a beer and pretzels game that enables you to use your great models to create a cinematic story/engagement. And the game should be respected for how well it does that

• Much of the complexity is driven by GW now catering to the so called competitive crowed. Its laughable that people consider that 40K is a competitive game given how simple full of holes the on table rues are compared to other games in the market. It really is people trying to bang a square peg into a round hole. My message to 40K is not to try and go down the full competitive route and use that as your primary driver, you will ruin your community.

• Most of the complexity in the 40K comes BEFORE the models hit the table. Rules needlessly spread across various books, campaign supplements, FAQs and cards. IMO this is a design feature by GW to increase sales in the same way Apple build redundancy into its products to ensure a market for the next Apple product.

• The fact that GW hasn’t release an all in one app that does all rule, cards, aids and scenarios in the same way Malifaux, WM/H, Infinity and other have amazes me. But that would reduce their ability to plan obsolescence into their books etc


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/21 11:35:41


Post by: the_scotsman


Sunno wrote:
Iv been looking into 40K as an alternative side game to play. I love the setting, lore and models but iv never played it beyond some silly games at friends house. My observations are:

40K on the tabletop is very simple to play. It’s the literal embodiment of a beer and pretzels game that enables you to use your great models to create a cinematic story/engagement. And the game should be respected for how well it does that

• Much of the complexity is driven by GW now catering to the so called competitive crowed. Its laughable that people consider that 40K is a competitive game given how simple full of holes the on table rues are compared to other games in the market. It really is people trying to bang a square peg into a round hole. My message to 40K is not to try and go down the full competitive route and use that as your primary driver, you will ruin your community.

• Most of the complexity in the 40K comes BEFORE the models hit the table. Rules needlessly spread across various books, campaign supplements, FAQs and cards. IMO this is a design feature by GW to increase sales in the same way Apple build redundancy into its products to ensure a market for the next Apple product.

• The fact that GW hasn’t release an all in one app that does all rule, cards, aids and scenarios in the same way Malifaux, WM/H, Infinity and other have amazes me. But that would reduce their ability to plan obsolescence into their books etc


1 - I challenge you to use literally any iteration of the current adeptus mechanicus rules and call them in any way simple to play. The fact that anyone can see 40k's current ruleset as simple/approachable compared to basically any other game boggles my mind. it's simple in the sense that there's not that many meaningful choices, but I have yet to find any game where resolving a choice you've made is more convoluted and obnoxious than 40k.

2 - yes, and also, this is the problem. But also, if you told ME to cater a game to the competitive crowd, you know what I would not do?

gak like "release one army at a time, using no consistent style guide or pre-planning whatsoever, resulting in every army playing a very slightly different game and having very similar, but CRITICALLY distinct versions of various highly important rules."

I would not, for example if I were making a competitive game, have an army like Genestealer Cults, where 1/2 of the unit entries in the codex can even access the basic army-wide subfaction rule, compete against an army like Space Marines, where every unit gets not just one but seven layers of army-wide special rules.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/21 13:47:17


Post by: Daedalus81


 the_scotsman wrote:
gak like "release one army at a time, using no consistent style guide or pre-planning whatsoever, resulting in every army playing a very slightly different game and having very similar, but CRITICALLY distinct versions of various highly important rules."

I would not, for example if I were making a competitive game, have an army like Genestealer Cults, where 1/2 of the unit entries in the codex can even access the basic army-wide subfaction rule, compete against an army like Space Marines, where every unit gets not just one but seven layers of army-wide special rules.


GW has done a better job of unifying similar rules. Some stinkers still exist ( like fight first / last and redeploys ).

For all the marine special rules marine players are a mixed bag of results depending on who played that week ( and probably how many DE were in the way ). Based on last week's results GSC scored better than BA and UM, but DW did as well as Admech ( which bends into player interest and skill ).

GSC will probably be the next watershed moment for GW ( on top of getting DE under control ).


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/21 14:09:05


Post by: the_scotsman


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
gak like "release one army at a time, using no consistent style guide or pre-planning whatsoever, resulting in every army playing a very slightly different game and having very similar, but CRITICALLY distinct versions of various highly important rules."

I would not, for example if I were making a competitive game, have an army like Genestealer Cults, where 1/2 of the unit entries in the codex can even access the basic army-wide subfaction rule, compete against an army like Space Marines, where every unit gets not just one but seven layers of army-wide special rules.


GW has done a better job of unifying similar rules. Some stinkers still exist ( like fight first / last and redeploys ).

For all the marine special rules marine players are a mixed bag of results depending on who played that week ( and probably how many DE were in the way ). Based on last week's results GSC scored better than BA and UM, but DW did as well as Admech ( which bends into player interest and skill ).

GSC will probably be the next watershed moment for GW ( on top of getting DE under control ).


...........are you serious? Here, how 'bout this - why dont we just go and play one of the classic fluff rivalries out on the tabletop. You take a classic Ultramarines army setup with Guilliman, tacticals, terminators, devastators, assault marines and Dreadnoughts, and I'll take a classic Black Legion army with Abbadon, chaos marines, havocs, raptors, and terminators.

Lets just see how well THAT game works out for us and how much fun we have recreating that good good classic 40k fluff grudgematch, I'm sure it'll be just awesome given how great a job GW is doing unifying similar rules

and before you come out and say "well, its not like GW can update everything all at once, that's not fair!" keep in mind they ACTUALLY DID do that and actually put in MORE work than it would take to quickly update analogous chaos units - they released all the beta rules for the BA, DA, SW, and DW rules for free in PDF form when they released codex CSM, they just didnt do that for GK and Chaos because whale consumers get special treatment.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/21 14:14:16


Post by: Tome_Keeper


Something that may be unsaid - at a higher level - is:

Many of the comments and options are referring to play balance from the gamers perspective and they are good comments and suggestions. Use USR's for maximum understanding
Release core rules for all factions at the time of edition release
DIgital delivery/Updates of rules and FAQ's
etc

But....From GW's perspective:

GW needs/wants to sell stuff and the way to do that is always make the new product better than the old product... and they are doing it by specific rules and exceptions which results in players, even casual ones, having to know their rules and everyone else's too and this is what seems to be the controversy here.






Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/21 14:23:10


Post by: a_typical_hero


Tome_Keeper wrote:
GW needs/wants to sell stuff and the way to do that is always make the new product better than the old product... and they are doing it by specific rules and exceptions which results in players, even casual ones, having to know their rules and everyone else's too and this is what seems to be the controversy here.

This is not true at all.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/21 14:32:56


Post by: the_scotsman


a_typical_hero wrote:
Tome_Keeper wrote:
GW needs/wants to sell stuff and the way to do that is always make the new product better than the old product... and they are doing it by specific rules and exceptions which results in players, even casual ones, having to know their rules and everyone else's too and this is what seems to be the controversy here.

This is not true at all.


Yeah, no, that's not at all the business strategy at play.

GW wants people to buy in to a faction reliably when they release a codex for that faction, and their goal is to try and have any given faction at their worst point just before getting a new codex, and at their best point just after getting a new codex.

New model releases do typically coincide with new codex books, and they obviously do push up new codexes whenever possible to coincide with new model releases (see sisters for a recent example, and probably also orks) but the spread of power level in any given new release tends to be pretty darn scattered.

Lets use sisters as an example:

Morven Vahl - tipity top auto include top tier
Other named character duo - bottom tier, basically a crusade-only unit
sisters with melee weapons - fairly gakky
sisters predator tank - as gakky as a regular predator tank
Mobile Suit Nundams - mid to high tier, has been seeing some competitive play AFAIK

^That spread does not read to me like 'they make all the new stuff OP and all the old stuff gak'

How bout the new orks?

Beastboss on Squigosaur - tippity top tier
Kill Rig - top tier
Hunta rig - mediocre
Squighog boyz - good in a skew list spamming them otherwise not good and generally outperformed by warbikes, which are an ancient kit everyone has tons of - weird, that.
Squig nob - mediocre
Beastboss on foot - never-include, literally the worst WARBOSS keyword model
Beast Snagga Boyz - bottom tier, ork players are happily spending 3cp to not use more than 1 troop slot in their lists
Kommandos - top tier
Named Runtherd - Rock bottom never-include trash
named beastboss - decent but locked to a clan nobody seems to be using much of, theoretically good in a squig spam list
new deffcopta kit - good
new boyz kit - rock bottom tier
mega-armored boss - middle tier but no reason to use him over beastboss on squigosaur
wurrboy - bottom tier


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/21 14:39:28


Post by: a_typical_hero


Everytime somebody writes "the latest release is always OP", the forum should automatically post a list of all the lists anybody ever cared to put together in regards to the unit's strength.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/21 15:16:09


Post by: Daedalus81


 the_scotsman wrote:

...........are you serious? Here, how 'bout this - why dont we just go and play one of the classic fluff rivalries out on the tabletop. You take a classic Ultramarines army setup with Guilliman, tacticals, terminators, devastators, assault marines and Dreadnoughts, and I'll take a classic Black Legion army with Abbadon, chaos marines, havocs, raptors, and terminators.

Lets just see how well THAT game works out for us and how much fun we have recreating that good good classic 40k fluff grudgematch, I'm sure it'll be just awesome given how great a job GW is doing unifying similar rules

and before you come out and say "well, its not like GW can update everything all at once, that's not fair!" keep in mind they ACTUALLY DID do that and actually put in MORE work than it would take to quickly update analogous chaos units - they released all the beta rules for the BA, DA, SW, and DW rules for free in PDF form when they released codex CSM, they just didnt do that for GK and Chaos because whale consumers get special treatment.


Let me revise my statement to be "so far in 9th". I get that people are disgruntled about un-updated books, but by everyone's admission here there's a lot of rules that go into making armies work in this edition - simply adding a wound to CSM or half-assing an update wouldn't have made them better. I don't think it's quite the same to extend supplements to sub-factions that relate to a major codex than it is to revamp a major codex.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/21 15:31:34


Post by: Gene St. Ealer


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:

...........are you serious? Here, how 'bout this - why dont we just go and play one of the classic fluff rivalries out on the tabletop. You take a classic Ultramarines army setup with Guilliman, tacticals, terminators, devastators, assault marines and Dreadnoughts, and I'll take a classic Black Legion army with Abbadon, chaos marines, havocs, raptors, and terminators.

Lets just see how well THAT game works out for us and how much fun we have recreating that good good classic 40k fluff grudgematch, I'm sure it'll be just awesome given how great a job GW is doing unifying similar rules

and before you come out and say "well, its not like GW can update everything all at once, that's not fair!" keep in mind they ACTUALLY DID do that and actually put in MORE work than it would take to quickly update analogous chaos units - they released all the beta rules for the BA, DA, SW, and DW rules for free in PDF form when they released codex CSM, they just didnt do that for GK and Chaos because whale consumers get special treatment.


Let me revise my statement to be "so far in 9th". I get that people are disgruntled about un-updated books, but by everyone's admission here there's a lot of rules that go into making armies work in this edition - simply adding a wound to CSM or half-assing an update wouldn't have made them better. I don't think it's quite the same to extend supplements to sub-factions that relate to a major codex than it is to revamp a major codex.


I don't know about that. I'd love an official QoL stopgap FAQ like Scotsman mentioned his club doing for Chaos. It's pretty simple and easy there. And as much as I'd love that for my other armies, I get why that would be less simple. But it just really sticks in the craw that GW can't be bothered to FAQ updates outside of exact corresponding weapons. Like, look at the rumors for Genestealer Cult. Assuming they're real, there's some really cool stuff there, including nice boosts to Purestrains and Patriarch. How much do you wanna bet that GW makes those changes, and they leave Nids Genestealers/Broodlords the exact same as they are now? I guess there's some cosmic justice there given that Nids Genestealers were better than GSC Genestealers for the entirety of 8th, but that's beside the point.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/21 15:37:36


Post by: Daedalus81


 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

I don't know about that. I'd love an official QoL stopgap FAQ like Scotsman mentioned his club doing for Chaos. It's pretty simple and easy there. And as much as I'd love that for my other armies, I get why that would be less simple. But it just really sticks in the craw that GW can't be bothered to FAQ updates outside of exact corresponding weapons. Like, look at the rumors for Genestealer Cult. Assuming they're real, there's some really cool stuff there, including nice boosts to Purestrains and Patriarch. How much do you wanna bet that GW makes those changes, and they leave Nids Genestealers/Broodlords the exact same as they are now? I guess there's some cosmic justice there given that Nids Genestealers were better than GSC Genestealers for the entirety of 8th, but that's beside the point.


Yea, really high chance of that, sadly. I'm thinking that's why Octarius is the Nid stop-gap.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/21 15:39:41


Post by: Sim-Life


To be honest thematically I have no problem with hive fleet nids being better/different than GSC Cult nids. It's really easy to explain and even makes sense that they would be.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/21 15:44:38


Post by: the_scotsman


 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:

...........are you serious? Here, how 'bout this - why dont we just go and play one of the classic fluff rivalries out on the tabletop. You take a classic Ultramarines army setup with Guilliman, tacticals, terminators, devastators, assault marines and Dreadnoughts, and I'll take a classic Black Legion army with Abbadon, chaos marines, havocs, raptors, and terminators.

Lets just see how well THAT game works out for us and how much fun we have recreating that good good classic 40k fluff grudgematch, I'm sure it'll be just awesome given how great a job GW is doing unifying similar rules

and before you come out and say "well, its not like GW can update everything all at once, that's not fair!" keep in mind they ACTUALLY DID do that and actually put in MORE work than it would take to quickly update analogous chaos units - they released all the beta rules for the BA, DA, SW, and DW rules for free in PDF form when they released codex CSM, they just didnt do that for GK and Chaos because whale consumers get special treatment.


Let me revise my statement to be "so far in 9th". I get that people are disgruntled about un-updated books, but by everyone's admission here there's a lot of rules that go into making armies work in this edition - simply adding a wound to CSM or half-assing an update wouldn't have made them better. I don't think it's quite the same to extend supplements to sub-factions that relate to a major codex than it is to revamp a major codex.


I don't know about that. I'd love an official QoL stopgap FAQ like Scotsman mentioned his club doing for Chaos. It's pretty simple and easy there. And as much as I'd love that for my other armies, I get why that would be less simple. But it just really sticks in the craw that GW can't be bothered to FAQ updates outside of exact corresponding weapons. Like, look at the rumors for Genestealer Cult. Assuming they're real, there's some really cool stuff there, including nice boosts to Purestrains and Patriarch. How much do you wanna bet that GW makes those changes, and they leave Nids Genestealers/Broodlords the exact same as they are now? I guess there's some cosmic justice there given that Nids Genestealers were better than GSC Genestealers for the entirety of 8th, but that's beside the point.


No its actually EXACTLY THE POINT. The update schedule where an army is predictably at its worst just before they get their new codex, and each edition they add a new layer of rules to make sure everybody gets their shiny new thing that gives an obvious advantage over the armies that dont have it is fantastic for Games Workshop's bottom line and making purchasing predictable, but trash for the actual customers and having a quality game.

it sucks ass for us when each and every edition they go:

"Ok, here's the new mechanic for this edition, we're going to be rolling it out one army at a time with the new codex books and until you get yours you get LITERALLY NOTHING to compensate for it, you just have to play against your friends who have their special new stuff and its going to be incredibly blatantly obvious that you're getting gak on the whole time, but we will happily kidnap beloved mechanics and hold them hostage behind the new system so you have to feel like the donkey-cave for asking your friend to not use the new stuff."

6th edition: Flyers - they introduced them at the beginning of the edition, made them super overpowered, and then whadda ya know each and every codex gave each faction their own flyer, and the armies that didn't have them, welp, hope you like just only hitting on a 6!

7th edition: Formations and Lords of War - "oh, you dont want to play with superheavies in your 2k games? So you'd be so cruel as to deny your opponent the ability to use such beloved characters as Ghazghkull and Marneus Calgar in their games?"

8th edition: Subfactions and Stratagems "What??? the minor subfactions like the Catachans and the Alpha Legion finally get their time in the sun after all these years, and you cruel, cruel monster, you want to deny those poor subfactions their fluffy fun bonus rules. And, no stratagems? OK so I guess you just hate company commanders being able to give orders out of their chimeras, like they've always been able to do, and you're just going to deprive that unit of its iconic signature ability you big meanie..."

9th edition: Purity bonuses/doctrines "Well, OK, we fully admit it at this point, we're just fething giving every new army a special thing that isn't even at all based in any kind of fluff or common sense to make them stronger than all the old ones. Space marine armies...I don't know, whatever, they just get like really good AP now, for no reason. Necrons now get to pick 2 special things, they get like better AP or faster movement or whatever, who cares. Sisters armies get a big army-wide thing you get to pick two of. Armies from 8th edition codexes are all gonna suck, and we're just not going to update them to work at all against 9th edition codexes. We don't give a feth anymore, our apologists will just tell you to wait your turn and it'll all *snicker* it'll, once the...*giggle* once all the codexes are out the game will be really *snort* really balanced and we DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEFINITELY wont pull THAT particular football away again.......HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa - sorry, I just couldnt get it out with a straight face."


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/21 15:49:28


Post by: macluvin


 the_scotsman wrote:

2 - yes, and also, this is the problem. But also, if you told ME to cater a game to the competitive crowd, you know what I would not do?

gak like "release one army at a time, using no consistent style guide or pre-planning whatsoever, resulting in every army playing a very slightly different game and having very similar, but CRITICALLY distinct versions of various highly important rules."

I would not, for example if I were making a competitive game, have an army like Genestealer Cults, where 1/2 of the unit entries in the codex can even access the basic army-wide subfaction rule, compete against an army like Space Marines, where every unit gets not just one but seven layers of army-wide special rules.


Makes me miss the days of indices...


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/21 16:16:17


Post by: Gert


Lol the Indexes were absolute garbage. Not even just because there was no differentiating between different subfactions but the rules themselves were just awful and balance was just as bad as any other point in 8th. They're what initially put me off playing 8th in the first place.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/21 16:44:02


Post by: Daedalus81


 the_scotsman wrote:


No its actually EXACTLY THE POINT. The update schedule where an army is predictably at its worst just before they get their new codex, and each edition they add a new layer of rules to make sure everybody gets their shiny new thing that gives an obvious advantage over the armies that dont have it is fantastic for Games Workshop's bottom line and making purchasing predictable, but trash for the actual customers and having a quality game.

it sucks ass for us when each and every edition they go:

"Ok, here's the new mechanic for this edition, we're going to be rolling it out one army at a time with the new codex books and until you get yours you get LITERALLY NOTHING to compensate for it, you just have to play against your friends who have their special new stuff and its going to be incredibly blatantly obvious that you're getting gak on the whole time, but we will happily kidnap beloved mechanics and hold them hostage behind the new system so you have to feel like the donkey-cave for asking your friend to not use the new stuff."

6th edition: Flyers - they introduced them at the beginning of the edition, made them super overpowered, and then whadda ya know each and every codex gave each faction their own flyer, and the armies that didn't have them, welp, hope you like just only hitting on a 6!

7th edition: Formations and Lords of War - "oh, you dont want to play with superheavies in your 2k games? So you'd be so cruel as to deny your opponent the ability to use such beloved characters as Ghazghkull and Marneus Calgar in their games?"

8th edition: Subfactions and Stratagems "What??? the minor subfactions like the Catachans and the Alpha Legion finally get their time in the sun after all these years, and you cruel, cruel monster, you want to deny those poor subfactions their fluffy fun bonus rules. And, no stratagems? OK so I guess you just hate company commanders being able to give orders out of their chimeras, like they've always been able to do, and you're just going to deprive that unit of its iconic signature ability you big meanie..."

9th edition: Purity bonuses/doctrines "Well, OK, we fully admit it at this point, we're just fething giving every new army a special thing that isn't even at all based in any kind of fluff or common sense to make them stronger than all the old ones. Space marine armies...I don't know, whatever, they just get like really good AP now, for no reason. Necrons now get to pick 2 special things, they get like better AP or faster movement or whatever, who cares. Sisters armies get a big army-wide thing you get to pick two of. Armies from 8th edition codexes are all gonna suck, and we're just not going to update them to work at all against 9th edition codexes. We don't give a feth anymore, our apologists will just tell you to wait your turn and it'll all *snicker* it'll, once the...*giggle* once all the codexes are out the game will be really *snort* really balanced and we DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEFINITELY wont pull THAT particular football away again.......HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa - sorry, I just couldnt get it out with a straight face."


I see you got your caffeine in today.

Best I can tell you is that 8th was a learning process for GW that they're still trying to unfold. 8th edition codexes can still give a good game. Even Knights took 53% with one having a 5-0 finish. Custodes went 5-1. Imperium was 53% and IG was 45% overall.

So what is it that people want, really? An average 40 to 50% win rate means you'll lose half your games. And if you're newer or less inclined to enjoy the ruleset you'll lose more than that. There are varying degrees of loss and at no point have I felt more able to control the degree of loss that I might have.

I don't think this is about win rates, but about people wanting to do cool gak with their models. Yet have thread after thread complaining about the rules that empower that.



Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/21 16:58:54


Post by: Gene St. Ealer


 Daedalus81 wrote:


I see you got your caffeine in today.

Best I can tell you is that 8th was a learning process for GW that they're still trying to unfold. 8th edition codexes can still give a good game. Even Knights took 53% with one having a 5-0 finish. Custodes went 5-1. Imperium was 53% and IG was 45% overall.

So what is it that people want, really? An average 40 to 50% win rate means you'll lose half your games. And if you're newer or less inclined to enjoy the ruleset you'll lose more than that. There are varying degrees of loss and at no point have I felt more able to control the degree of loss that I might have.

I don't think this is about win rates, but about people wanting to do cool gak with their models. Yet have thread after thread complaining about the rules that empower that.



What does this discussion of tournament win rates have to do with anything Scotsman said? The issue isn't tournament win rates (and you cherry picked there btw, there were 6 armies under 40% WR and up until this week, Guard very much was one of those armies). It's not even about that. Yeah, you can min max a Nids list to maybe do alright at tournaments, depending on what you run into. But when you do army by army or even unit by unit comparisons, it's just all very, very sad. Your stuff doesn't hit as hard, and it can't take hits as hard. Hell, with Nids, it's even more tantalizing when you look at things like the FW Monstrous Creatures -- it shows that *GW knows how to fix it* but they're just not. That has nothing to do with win rates and it's what makes the game so hard for me to enjoy right now.

ETA: of course, you could say that Nids stuff is meant to be fielded en masse and therefore it's fluffy that their crap is crap. But that's a copout; I don't care how many Carnifexes you can bring, the thing sucks at punching, and it's never going to feel comparable to a Dread or 2 Dreads or whatever (and I would very much argue that Nids should be able to match up against pound for pound equivalents; the Hivemind shouldn't be about subpar evolutionary traits)


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/21 17:34:52


Post by: Tyel


I guess the question for GW would be how to maintain hype and interest if they did a genuine "voila, 9th edition, full batch of codexes, btw your faction is getting but maybe a character model for at least another 3-5 years, have fun."


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/21 17:35:33


Post by: Daedalus81


 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

What does this discussion of tournament win rates have to do with anything Scotsman said? The issue isn't tournament win rates (and you cherry picked there btw, there were 6 armies under 40% WR and up until this week, Guard very much was one of those armies). It's not even about that. Yeah, you can min max a Nids list to maybe do alright at tournaments, depending on what you run into. But when you do army by army or even unit by unit comparisons, it's just all very, very sad. Your stuff doesn't hit as hard, and it can't take hits as hard. Hell, with Nids, it's even more tantalizing when you look at things like the FW Monstrous Creatures -- it shows that *GW knows how to fix it* but they're just not. That has nothing to do with win rates and it's what makes the game so hard for me to enjoy right now.

ETA: of course, you could say that Nids stuff is meant to be fielded en masse and therefore it's fluffy that their crap is crap. But that's a copout; I don't care how many Carnifexes you can bring, the thing sucks at punching, and it's never going to feel comparable to a Dread or 2 Dreads or whatever (and I would very much argue that Nids should be able to match up against pound for pound equivalents; the Hivemind shouldn't be about subpar evolutionary traits)


Right - it isn't about tournament win rates, but I get the sense that people base the judgements of their experiences around them, because it's the only relatable data.

"See? I only lost, because my army is low win rate."

Playing DE is a fools errand for most armies if you're not adequately prepared, but when you step outside that it's far easier to get a good game. How people define "good game" is also going to vary from "I won" to "I didn't feel totally helpless".

There's so many different motivations on this forum that it becomes hard to parse them in relation to everything else.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/21 17:37:58


Post by: Sunny Side Up


Community could just do it themselves.

Just play on 8th Edition until all 9th Ed. Codexes are completely released, FAQed, etc.. .

Then, while GW is rolling out 10th, play on the "completed 9th Ed." until is 10th is fully 100% releases, patched, FAQed and completed.

Rinse and repeat.



It would even be better than GW keeping it all under wraps until they release it in a complete dump, because it would be public knowledge for a few years for public scrutiny.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/21 17:42:57


Post by: the_scotsman


Tyel wrote:
I guess the question for GW would be how to maintain hype and interest if they did a genuine "voila, 9th edition, full batch of codexes, btw your faction is getting but maybe a character model for at least another 3-5 years, have fun."


Ridiculously easy - release the new edition, release the changes you're going to put forth in various armies, and just release new minis as they come with new datasheets. people certainly didnt need a new 'dex to get hyped for the new admech stuff, did they?

And, feth, the rules are there to get you to buy like 500$ of models - just fething give them away for free. it is absolutely buck wild to me that GW is not just charging the same amount for books that they have been, but in fact charging more now. Absolutely crazy.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/21 17:53:14


Post by: dreadblade


I think GW knows that the gradual release of codexes encourages people to buy new armies. Once the excitement of getting a new codex for your existing army has passed, new releases start to look tempting.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/21 18:08:05


Post by: Klickor


 Daedalus81 wrote:

Best I can tell you is that 8th was a learning process for GW that they're still trying to unfold. 8th edition codexes can still give a good game. Even Knights took 53% with one having a 5-0 finish. Custodes went 5-1. Imperium was 53% and IG was 45% overall.

So what is it that people want, really? An average 40 to 50% win rate means you'll lose half your games. And if you're newer or less inclined to enjoy the ruleset you'll lose more than that. There are varying degrees of loss and at no point have I felt more able to control the degree of loss that I might have.



If you play only at tournaments you will have a hard time not getting at least some wins as in the later rounds you will most likely meet other bad armies/players and your win rate will flatten out. Unless you have the nice luck one of my friends at a tournament a month ago who went 0-20, 0-20 and then actually had to face a good Ad-mech list, which had met the other ad-mech lists at the event in round 1 and 2 and went second, in his third round who also crushed him. At least in round 4 and 5 he got to meet others at his level.

But in a smaller group of people you might have to play against stronger armies and players almost all the time and if you then have a bad army even if you are an average player you might have win rates way way lower than 40%.

I wonder if some of those that feel the game is better balanced than it really is might lack the ability to see what will happen in later turns. I see people all the time that lose during deployment/setup in games(not just 40k) think the games were close and decided in later turns and felt that the game was always up for grabs. While better players might have known how the game would go from the start(besides insane dice rolling ofc but that isnt up to the players anyway). Those that cant see how future turns will work out usually enjoy the games more so it isnt a bad trait for a more casual gamer. But their view on the balance of the game is pretty useless.

I have seen some of our country's best 40k players duke it out against each others and sometimes it is just a stomp depending on who goes first in certain matchups. They know that unless they deploy in certain ways and goes first they will lose in a few turns 95% of the time so they do the smart decision on betting on going first. It might look like they lost due to a bad deployment but they actually lost even before then and their deployment was actually good and their best chance of winning. But you need to be a rather good player to see that.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/21 18:36:04


Post by: vipoid


 dreadblade wrote:
I think GW knows that the gradual release of codexes encourages people to buy new armies. Once the excitement of getting a new codex for your existing army has passed, new releases start to look tempting.


If they want people to start new armies, why would they insist on having ~£25 barriers to entry for every army?

Surely it would make far more sense to make the rules for all armies free, meaning any player's first purchase for an army would be models?


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/21 18:48:20


Post by: ccs


 vipoid wrote:
 dreadblade wrote:
I think GW knows that the gradual release of codexes encourages people to buy new armies. Once the excitement of getting a new codex for your existing army has passed, new releases start to look tempting.


If they want people to start new armies, why would they insist on having ~£25 barriers to entry for every army?

Surely it would make far more sense to make the rules for all armies free, meaning any player's first purchase for an army would be models?


Clearly GW doesn't agree with you on giving away the rules for free. And it seems to be working for them, so I'm inclined to think they know how to run their business better than you do.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/21 19:11:45


Post by: jeff white


Sunno wrote:
Iv been looking into 40K as an alternative side game to play. I love the setting, lore and models but iv never played it beyond some silly games at friends house. My observations are:

40K on the tabletop is very simple to play. It’s the literal embodiment of a beer and pretzels game that enables you to use your great models to create a cinematic story/engagement. And the game should be respected for how well it does that

• Much of the complexity is driven by GW now catering to the so called competitive crowed. Its laughable that people consider that 40K is a competitive game given how simple full of holes the on table rues are compared to other games in the market. It really is people trying to bang a square peg into a round hole. My message to 40K is not to try and go down the full competitive route and use that as your primary driver, you will ruin your community.

• Most of the complexity in the 40K comes BEFORE the models hit the table. Rules needlessly spread across various books, campaign supplements, FAQs and cards. IMO this is a design feature by GW to increase sales in the same way Apple build redundancy into its products to ensure a market for the next Apple product.

• The fact that GW hasn’t release an all in one app that does all rule, cards, aids and scenarios in the same way Malifaux, WM/H, Infinity and other have amazes me. But that would reduce their ability to plan obsolescence into their books etc


Strong 177th post. Exalted.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/21 19:17:00


Post by: H.B.M.C.


ccs wrote:
Clearly GW doesn't agree with you on giving away the rules for free. And it seems to be working for them, so I'm inclined to think they know how to run their business better than you do.
That almost seems like circular logic: GW sells rules, and because people are buying them GW sells rules, and because people are buying them GW sells rules...



Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/21 20:35:55


Post by: AnomanderRake


ccs wrote:
...Clearly GW doesn't agree with you on giving away the rules for free. And it seems to be working for them, so I'm inclined to think they know how to run their business better than you do.


Oh, yeah. Obviously GW's business model is an incredibly fragile house of cards that rests on doing everything exactly the way they are doing it, and every single tiny little decision is integral to the whole thing, and if they changed anything at all that'd cause the whole thing to collapse and them to stop making money.

(I'm sorry for being sarcastic and dismissive here, but this is an incredibly awful argument to make about anything.)


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/21 20:54:22


Post by: Daedalus81


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
ccs wrote:
Clearly GW doesn't agree with you on giving away the rules for free. And it seems to be working for them, so I'm inclined to think they know how to run their business better than you do.
That almost seems like circular logic: GW sells rules, and because people are buying them GW sells rules, and because people are buying them GW sells rules...



I definitely like having a hard copy codex, but also mainly because GW's app is terrible for a casual perusal of rules. If they had free pdf I might still buy the book, but then the problem becomes should they make a product people might not buy?

I have no doubt book sales are a cornerstone for them given the supplement rush already in 9th. They'd be fine without out them, I'm sure, but at the same time you're putting all the cost of the writers into the models and suddenly you could get more pressure to sell models via rules.

People that think there's plenty of room there might be mistaken. GW took its dividend which was 145p to 25p citing freight costs and currency exchange rates.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/21 21:11:20


Post by: ccs


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
ccs wrote:
Clearly GW doesn't agree with you on giving away the rules for free. And it seems to be working for them, so I'm inclined to think they know how to run their business better than you do.
That almost seems like circular logic: GW sells rules, and because people are buying them GW sells rules, and because people are buying them GW sells rules...


No. The point is that GW knows better than all you armchair CEO geniuses wether or not giving stuff away for free suits its needs/plans.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/21 21:23:15


Post by: jeff white


Maybe they are more optimistic about their target market demographic’s seemingly unbounded capacity to champion their own co dependency. The test of better knowledge is always where the rubber meets the road. I guess, if you are right, you and others who share this opinion make it so.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/21 21:46:38


Post by: AnomanderRake


ccs wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
ccs wrote:
Clearly GW doesn't agree with you on giving away the rules for free. And it seems to be working for them, so I'm inclined to think they know how to run their business better than you do.
That almost seems like circular logic: GW sells rules, and because people are buying them GW sells rules, and because people are buying them GW sells rules...


No. The point is that GW knows better than all you armchair CEO geniuses wether or not giving stuff away for free suits its needs/plans.


Or that we understand our needs and we think GW has more of an obligation to serve the needs of the consumer than you seem to, rather than telling anyone who complains "they make more money this way, so shut up and stop complaining."


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/21 22:24:48


Post by: Gert


I think the unit profiles should be available for free, like AoS 1 and to a degree what we see included with the model instructions. Army rules and a more comprehensive set of core rules should be contained to rulebooks which should be for purchase, just not at £30 each.
As for GW having obligations to its consumers, anyone who assumes GW has any obligation whatsoever is lying to themselves. All the company has to do is follow Trading Standards laws and that's it. It is under no obligation to make changes to rules once the rulebooks have been printed. I'm not saying you should be worshipping GW because FAQs get released, I'm just saying not to kid yourself into believing any company has any moral obligation to you in any way.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/21 23:37:00


Post by: Sim-Life


ccs wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
ccs wrote:
Clearly GW doesn't agree with you on giving away the rules for free. And it seems to be working for them, so I'm inclined to think they know how to run their business better than you do.
That almost seems like circular logic: GW sells rules, and because people are buying them GW sells rules, and because people are buying them GW sells rules...


No. The point is that GW knows better than all you armchair CEO geniuses wether or not giving stuff away for free suits its needs/plans.


Even for Dakka this is just a plain bad take. Please stop.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/22 02:27:57


Post by: H.B.M.C.


ccs wrote:
No. The point is that GW knows better than all you armchair CEO geniuses wether or not giving stuff away for free suits its needs/plans.
I don't think I've said anything about free rules in this thread, so simmer down son. Who got you so angry?


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/22 03:56:43


Post by: ClockworkZion


 the_scotsman wrote:
Tyel wrote:
I guess the question for GW would be how to maintain hype and interest if they did a genuine "voila, 9th edition, full batch of codexes, btw your faction is getting but maybe a character model for at least another 3-5 years, have fun."


Ridiculously easy - release the new edition, release the changes you're going to put forth in various armies, and just release new minis as they come with new datasheets. people certainly didnt need a new 'dex to get hyped for the new admech stuff, did they?

And, feth, the rules are there to get you to buy like 500$ of models - just fething give them away for free. it is absolutely buck wild to me that GW is not just charging the same amount for books that they have been, but in fact charging more now. Absolutely crazy.

From what I gather from listening to ex-employees online GW still operates under a business model that requires the books and box department to turn a profit. So all those shiny books? Thats where they make their money. GW would need to stop treating it as a revenue stream for us to get proper rules updates for free.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Gert wrote:
I think the unit profiles should be available for free, like AoS 1 and to a degree what we see included with the model instructions. Army rules and a more comprehensive set of core rules should be contained to rulebooks which should be for purchase, just not at £30 each.
As for GW having obligations to its consumers, anyone who assumes GW has any obligation whatsoever is lying to themselves. All the company has to do is follow Trading Standards laws and that's it. It is under no obligation to make changes to rules once the rulebooks have been printed. I'm not saying you should be worshipping GW because FAQs get released, I'm just saying not to kid yourself into believing any company has any moral obligation to you in any way.

Sadly GW is killing the free AoS warscrolls which is a shame because it was a nice idea to have them available for us to see and get some idea of what it does in a vacuum at least.

I'd be less annoyed if the apps were solid but they're both buggy and far to often wrong at this point in time.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/22 06:13:04


Post by: AngryAngel80


ccs wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
ccs wrote:
Clearly GW doesn't agree with you on giving away the rules for free. And it seems to be working for them, so I'm inclined to think they know how to run their business better than you do.
That almost seems like circular logic: GW sells rules, and because people are buying them GW sells rules, and because people are buying them GW sells rules...


No. The point is that GW knows better than all you armchair CEO geniuses wether or not giving stuff away for free suits its needs/plans.



As another has already said we don't really give a fig about what GW wants to do for its own greed, as customers we want our needs seen to. Sure GW sells rules, so people buy rules, we get it. For a company that is supposed to be all about the models thought, wouldn't it be nice if the rules for playing the game were free ? With hard copies sold with the art and all the extra bells and whistles ? I know I'd like that. Which is really what I care about, me and my comrades paying for the product right ? I don't think it takes a super brain to realize companies want all of the money so anything to make all of the money, great idea ! There we go, I've figured out their master plan this whole time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
ccs wrote:
No. The point is that GW knows better than all you armchair CEO geniuses wether or not giving stuff away for free suits its needs/plans.
I don't think I've said anything about free rules in this thread, so simmer down son. Who got you so angry?


If he doesn't fight for the rights of GW they will take away all of his models and cast him out. He's fighting for his life brother !


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/22 06:59:15


Post by: Blackie


 vipoid wrote:
 dreadblade wrote:
I think GW knows that the gradual release of codexes encourages people to buy new armies. Once the excitement of getting a new codex for your existing army has passed, new releases start to look tempting.


If they want people to start new armies, why would they insist on having ~£25 barriers to entry for every army?

Surely it would make far more sense to make the rules for all armies free, meaning any player's first purchase for an army would be models?


I think starting a new army because a shiny new codex is the last GW release is a terrible thing to do. We all know that armies' qualities are shifting periodically and for most of the players getting 2000ish points of battle ready models takes a significant amount of time. It takes a whole year to me on average as I'm not a really motivated painter, especially if it's something I've never painted before and I would probably have other things to paint from already collected armies or terrain as well which slows the process of making the new army battle ready even more.

People should start new armies ONLY for the models and their lore eventually, and probably they should do it in advance: skip the codex, start collecting and wait for the next codex to start playing. At least that's how I've always done that, first army aside of course. If someone could paint 2000ish points of models in a few weeks starting an army with a codex release makes much more sense.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/22 07:02:46


Post by: Sunny Side Up


 AnomanderRake wrote:


Or that we understand our needs and we think GW has more of an obligation to serve the needs of the consumer than you seem to, rather than telling anyone who complains "they make more money this way, so shut up and stop complaining."


Sure. I mean obviously Ferrari keeps gives away free gasoline, so we keep buying their cars. Not sure why GW can't see the obvious.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/22 07:16:24


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Sunny, oh boy... that... I don't even know where to begin on how false that analogy is.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/22 07:22:31


Post by: Sim-Life


Sunny Side Up wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:


Or that we understand our needs and we think GW has more of an obligation to serve the needs of the consumer than you seem to, rather than telling anyone who complains "they make more money this way, so shut up and stop complaining."


Sure. I mean obviously Ferrari keeps gives away free gasoline, so we keep buying their cars. Not sure why GW can't see the obvious.


When are people going to stop using car and food analogies? They never, ever work.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/22 07:35:37


Post by: Grimtuff


 Sim-Life wrote:
Sunny Side Up wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:


Or that we understand our needs and we think GW has more of an obligation to serve the needs of the consumer than you seem to, rather than telling anyone who complains "they make more money this way, so shut up and stop complaining."


Sure. I mean obviously Ferrari keeps gives away free gasoline, so we keep buying their cars. Not sure why GW can't see the obvious.


When are people going to stop using car and food analogies? They never, ever work.


Because minis are essential purchases just like food apparently...


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/22 07:43:19


Post by: dreadblade


 Blackie wrote:
 vipoid wrote:
 dreadblade wrote:
I think GW knows that the gradual release of codexes encourages people to buy new armies. Once the excitement of getting a new codex for your existing army has passed, new releases start to look tempting.


If they want people to start new armies, why would they insist on having ~£25 barriers to entry for every army?

Surely it would make far more sense to make the rules for all armies free, meaning any player's first purchase for an army would be models?


I think starting a new army because a shiny new codex is the last GW release is a terrible thing to do. We all know that armies' qualities are shifting periodically and for most of the players getting 2000ish points of battle ready models takes a significant amount of time. It takes a whole year to me on average as I'm not a really motivated painter, especially if it's something I've never painted before and I would probably have other things to paint from already collected armies or terrain as well which slows the process of making the new army battle ready even more.

People should start new armies ONLY for the models and their lore eventually, and probably they should do it in advance: skip the codex, start collecting and wait for the next codex to start playing. At least that's how I've always done that, first army aside of course. If someone could paint 2000ish points of models in a few weeks starting an army with a codex release makes much more sense.


I just think that GW's gradual release schedule results in separate, focused marketing for each faction - a codex, new models, warhammer community articles etc. I personally buy the codex for models I like first to read the lore and learn about the units before buying the models.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/22 10:11:25


Post by: Ordana


Tyel wrote:
I guess the question for GW would be how to maintain hype and interest if they did a genuine "voila, 9th edition, full batch of codexes, btw your faction is getting but maybe a character model for at least another 3-5 years, have fun."
As opposed to 'here is a new edition, your not getting anything for 2 years and then you get a codex with maybe a unit and then nothing else for 3 years'?

Non Space Marine players who play 1 army already get a codex and nothing else every edition. Your proposal would change absolutely nothing for them except allow everyone to compete on an even footing.






Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
ccs wrote:
Clearly GW doesn't agree with you on giving away the rules for free. And it seems to be working for them, so I'm inclined to think they know how to run their business better than you do.
That almost seems like circular logic: GW sells rules, and because people are buying them GW sells rules, and because people are buying them GW sells rules...



I definitely like having a hard copy codex, but also mainly because GW's app is terrible for a casual perusal of rules. If they had free pdf I might still buy the book, but then the problem becomes should they make a product people might not buy?

I have no doubt book sales are a cornerstone for them given the supplement rush already in 9th. They'd be fine without out them, I'm sure, but at the same time you're putting all the cost of the writers into the models and suddenly you could get more pressure to sell models via rules.

People that think there's plenty of room there might be mistaken. GW took its dividend which was 145p to 25p citing freight costs and currency exchange rates.
Which is why you put the rules online for free without background and pretty pictures and then sell hardcore books with background and pretty pictures for those who want them.

Lower barrier of entry into the game/armies but still sell books to the collectors.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/22 10:16:36


Post by: Eldarsif


 Ordana wrote:
Tyel wrote:
I guess the question for GW would be how to maintain hype and interest if they did a genuine "voila, 9th edition, full batch of codexes, btw your faction is getting but maybe a character model for at least another 3-5 years, have fun."
As opposed to 'here is a new edition, your not getting anything for 2 years and then you get a codex with maybe a unit and then nothing else for 3 years'?

Non Space Marine players who play 1 army already get a codex and nothing else every edition. Your proposal would change absolutely nothing for them except allow everyone to compete on an even footing.





Technically it seems that GW wants to sprinkle some more stuff around with campaign book releases accompanying new models. Sadly it is an annoying format as it is not fun to have dozens upon dozens of outdated campaign books that have minimal content on your shelves.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/22 10:40:08


Post by: Blackie


 dreadblade wrote:


I just think that GW's gradual release schedule results in separate, focused marketing for each faction - a codex, new models, warhammer community articles etc. I personally buy the codex for models I like first to read the lore and learn about the units before buying the models.


Really? You can find all the lore, detailed reviews and pictures you want for free on the internet, without even relying on piracy.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/22 10:45:46


Post by: vict0988


Tyel wrote:
I guess the question for GW would be how to maintain hype and interest if they did a genuine "voila, 9th edition, full batch of codexes, btw your faction is getting but maybe a character model for at least another 3-5 years, have fun."

victCodexes don't contain Chapter Tactics and such, they get updated once every 3-5 years (instead of every 1-4 years). victChapter Approved contains Chapter Tactics, Relics, WL traits, Combat Doctrines, Super Doctrines etc. and are released once a year. That solves the issue, GW can increase the price of Chapter Approved as much as they need to in order to get the same profit margins.

Then GW makes these rules balanced enough that you want to try out everything instead of making a super sword relic and a cardboard sword relic which is just a worse version of the former, they can do this because the testing will be thorough and nothing is being made last-minute. The testers have a schedule and checklist for broken things to look out for and it is shared, the final version gets seen by all playtesters before it is released. The rules don't go from one team to the next one at a time until it is churned out on a conveyor belt as things currently seem to be. The rules should be designed together, they are meant to be played together, I don't want to hear the bullcrap excuse of 8th edition codexes being outside reprimand in 9th because they weren't designed for the current rules.

You need about 54 games to try out everything in the codex, 3 games each with 18 lists, enough for one game a week. Then you can play your other armies or you can settle into one list and play it another 30 times to get really good at it, if you play more than 50 games a year that is. Then the next Chapter Approved comes out and you can do it again, new missions, points and rules shaking up the armies you want to try out and of course all the armies you will face.

Not to mention narrative releases which GW can do as much of as they like as there is less pressure to keep up and it's okay if the rules are terrible for pick-up and tournament games and only focus on letting you get nitty-gritty with you and your crusade group's fluffy army histories. How much time could GW have saved if Crusade rules were printed in a separate book instead of on a per-codex basis? AdMech and Drukhari sure didn't need an update half as badly as CSM and Tau still do.

 dreadblade wrote:
I think GW knows that the gradual release of codexes encourages people to buy new armies.

It also encourages people to rage-quit the game, 40k could be much larger than it is if it didn't push away anyone who doesn't want to saddled with a gak army for 5 years or buy a new one.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Spoiler:
 AnomanderRake wrote:


Or that we understand our needs and we think GW has more of an obligation to serve the needs of the consumer than you seem to, rather than telling anyone who complains "they make more money this way, so shut up and stop complaining."


Sure. I mean obviously Ferrari keeps gives away free gasoline, so we keep buying their cars. Not sure why GW can't see the obvious.

Tesla gives away free software updates for their cars, not that I support GW going the free model, it's 5 years too early for that. People still want books, I just think the content and release schedule should be moved around so people get what they need faster and so that GW can avoid re-printing things that don't need an update as often as they do.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/22 10:46:25


Post by: Blackie


 Grimtuff wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
Sunny Side Up wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:


Or that we understand our needs and we think GW has more of an obligation to serve the needs of the consumer than you seem to, rather than telling anyone who complains "they make more money this way, so shut up and stop complaining."


Sure. I mean obviously Ferrari keeps gives away free gasoline, so we keep buying their cars. Not sure why GW can't see the obvious.


When are people going to stop using car and food analogies? They never, ever work.


Because minis are essential purchases just like food apparently...


Minis are luxury items. The comparison with cars is disingenuous because buying a car doesn't happen very often and most of the times that car is not even a luxury item, just a tool that is much needed for everyday routine. But a food analogy can be ok as long as we're considering "luxury" food/restaurants, not just what people need to avoid starvation.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/22 10:57:02


Post by: Sim-Life


 vict0988 wrote:

Tesla gives away free software updates for their cars, not that I support GW going the free model, it's 5 years too early for that. People still want books, I just think the content and release schedule should be moved around so people get what they need faster and so that GW can avoid re-printing things that don't need an update as often as they do.


GW could absolutely adopts a free rules model and still sell books. Free digital rules doesn't need to be the entire codex, it just needs to be the army and game rules, fluff and art stay in the physical and since people play 40k for the setting they'd pay for that stuff.

Besides that people buy GWs books regardless of the availability of rules. Currently between Battlescribe and Wahapedia the rules basically ARE free and not at all hard to find and arguably better presented and easier to use than the official channels, yet people still throw money at GWs over-priced tree pulp, so claiming they'd lose money is clearly incorrect.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/22 11:25:39


Post by: aphyon


 Sim-Life wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:

Tesla gives away free software updates for their cars, not that I support GW going the free model, it's 5 years too early for that. People still want books, I just think the content and release schedule should be moved around so people get what they need faster and so that GW can avoid re-printing things that don't need an update as often as they do.


GW could absolutely adopts a free rules model and still sell books. Free digital rules doesn't need to be the entire codex, it just needs to be the army and game rules, fluff and art stay in the physical and since people play 40k for the setting they'd pay for that stuff.

Besides that people buy GWs books regardless of the availability of rules. Currently between Battlescribe and Wahapedia the rules basically ARE free and not at all hard to find and arguably better presented and easier to use than the official channels, yet people still throw money at GWs over-priced tree pulp, so claiming they'd lose money is clearly incorrect.


That's true of several other companies.
-the core rules and the army builder for infinity have always been free, but if you want the lore and such with the rules you need to buy a hard copy of the book,
-absolutely everything from DUST is free to download from the core rules to the unit cards to the scenarios, to the army TO&E theme lists. you do not even need to own a hard copy for anything other than convenience.
-WMH rules are also a free download as are all the unit cards.

With some players it seems like buying GW product even when it isn't minis is almost like a religious devotion.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/22 11:36:57


Post by: the_scotsman


Sunny Side Up wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:


Or that we understand our needs and we think GW has more of an obligation to serve the needs of the consumer than you seem to, rather than telling anyone who complains "they make more money this way, so shut up and stop complaining."


Sure. I mean obviously Ferrari keeps gives away free gasoline, so we keep buying their cars. Not sure why GW can't see the obvious.


Do....do you think when you buy a car, the dealership doesn't fill it up with gas and oil and things to make it so you can drive the car right away and make the vroom vroom noises? Because, you know, if you're spending thousands and thousands of dollars on a car, saving the couple hundred by requiring the new owner to I guess tow it to a shop and get transmission fluid and oil and AC fluid and gas put in it would be absolutely asinine, and car companies absolutely rely on people falling in love with the things the car can do when they take it on a test drive?

"Sorry we're a CAR company, loser, the TIRE company is over there, you know, mavis tire and auto you ever heard of it idiot? Oh, you didn't bring your own forklift to get it over there? What kind of clown are you, luckily we sell Ferrari brand forklifts you can buy for twice the price of the same forklift without our brand sticker on it."


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/22 12:07:31


Post by: Tyel


Its generally not good business to give stuff away for free if customers are happy paying for it. Whether you think those people paying for it are cultists, drones, or whatever doesn't change that fact. Its possible people will turn round and spend that money on more miniatures - but they may not.

Personally I think the modern codexes are kind of sad, with essentially no lore content compared to how things were decades ago - and often a relatively poor increase in art and photos.

But equally, I've often found games with free rules kind of complicated because as a new player you don't know where to start. Whereas its relatively simple, even with a superficial knowledge of a game, to get an army book and read it inside out at your leisure. You may not have the context to know whether X or Y is "good" - but it can still be "cool".

I am however a victim of codex hype. I read rumours leading up to a release, I may buy models and build armies as a consequence of that release, I then play some games, often lose the hype when lists don't work and then wait for another to come along. If everything was out at the start that wouldn't happen - and even though the codexes would theoretically be there for me to dig through, in practice other people would do so. Its hard for example to imagine me "discovering" Space Marines at this point a year or so on since their release. Partly this is "ew, Space Marines", partly its just because the book has been crunched. My lament on DE is that the book got crunched in about 2 weeks. "Its mad overpowered yo, take more or less whatever you like, except Talos."

Commercially this is silly - and I know other people bought an army 5-20 years ago, believe that should be it in terms of miniatures, and each edition they resent having to buy a new set of rules to play with it. But I'm not them.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/22 12:12:36


Post by: ClockworkZion


Of all of GW's old business practices it's their insistence that print must be the source of rules that has bothered me as time has gone on. I got it ten years ago when smartphones were still new and the battery life was trash, but in 2021 when almost everyone has a smartphone standard and the battery can easily handle a three hour game? Definitely not acceptable any more.

Lower barriers to entry are important to having a wider customer base and getting people to buy more models.

A common complaint I've been hearing regarding the books is that there are just too many of them. A friend of mine is a diehard for Necromunda but the sheer volume of books is pushing him away from the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyel wrote:
Personally I think the modern codexes are kind of sad, with essentially no lore content compared to how things were decades ago - and often a relatively poor increase in art and photos.

It's the worst part of 3rd edition they've brought forward for sure.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/22 12:23:57


Post by: Gert


I feel like the number of books needed is an issue for long-time hobbyists more than anyone else.
A lot of the people I used to play with (myself included) had quite a few armies, I think the average was 4 IIRC. As time has gone on though, those that are left have condensed themselves down quite a bit since buying 4 Codexes each edition was just not worth it. Someone who is newer to the hobby might only have one army for a whole Edition. Wish I could go back to such simpler times.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/22 12:41:26


Post by: a_typical_hero


 ClockworkZion wrote:
Tyel wrote:
Personally I think the modern codexes are kind of sad, with essentially no lore content compared to how things were decades ago - and often a relatively poor increase in art and photos.

It's the worst part of 3rd edition they've brought forward for sure.

Implying the overall quality of a current hardback codex with ~130-200 multi-colored pages, high quality artwork (you might not like the art direction, but that is a personal taste) is the same as those ~50 pages black/white booklets is a bit dishonest, innit?

Conversion ideas are missing as well as properly fleshed out lore sections for units. But the rest of a current codex is - quality wise - way higher than back then.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/22 12:43:40


Post by: The_Real_Chris


ccs wrote:
No. The point is that GW knows better than all you armchair CEO geniuses wether or not giving stuff away for free suits its needs/plans.


Turns out previous management didn't know to sell us the stuff we wanted to buy. The current 'revolution' involves selling a lot more of the stuff we ask for. Who knew?


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/22 12:56:15


Post by: the_scotsman


 Gert wrote:
I feel like the number of books needed is an issue for long-time hobbyists more than anyone else.
A lot of the people I used to play with (myself included) had quite a few armies, I think the average was 4 IIRC. As time has gone on though, those that are left have condensed themselves down quite a bit since buying 4 Codexes each edition was just not worth it. Someone who is newer to the hobby might only have one army for a whole Edition. Wish I could go back to such simpler times.


Nah, it's a massive burden for new players trying to get in. I deal with a ton of new folks, everybody is INCREDIBLY unhappy about the fact that you need like 4 books to play (GT Pack, rules, typically the Space Marine codex and a Supplement)


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/22 12:57:51


Post by: Gert


Do you really "need" the GT pack? What does it actually do?


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/22 12:59:26


Post by: Rihgu


Let's you play the same rules your area's established playgroup are going to insist on playing, judging by the experience of most 40k players I've talked to/seen posting on Dakkadakka/reddit.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/22 13:12:45


Post by: ClockworkZion


a_typical_hero wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
Tyel wrote:
Personally I think the modern codexes are kind of sad, with essentially no lore content compared to how things were decades ago - and often a relatively poor increase in art and photos.

It's the worst part of 3rd edition they've brought forward for sure.

Implying the overall quality of a current hardback codex with 200+ multi-colored pages, high quality artwork (you might not like the art direction, but that is a personal taste) is the same as those 50 pages black/white booklets is a bit dishonest, innit?

Conversion ideas are missing as well as properly fleshed out lore sections for units. But the rest of a current codex is - quality wise - way higher than back then.

I was specifically refering to the massive stripping back of lore and unit entries, not implying the books are somehow low quality. And outside of Codex Space Marines how many books are actually 200+ pages?


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/22 13:13:01


Post by: Sim-Life


Tyel wrote:
Its generally not good business to give stuff away for free if customers are happy paying for it. Whether you think those people paying for it are cultists, drones, or whatever doesn't change that fact. Its possible people will turn round and spend that money on more miniatures - but they may not.


It works well for much smaller companies with much tighter profit margins than GW


But equally, I've often found games with free rules kind of complicated because as a new player you don't know where to start.


Ironic.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/22 13:13:46


Post by: ClockworkZion


The_Real_Chris wrote:
ccs wrote:
No. The point is that GW knows better than all you armchair CEO geniuses wether or not giving stuff away for free suits its needs/plans.


Turns out previous management didn't know to sell us the stuff we wanted to buy. The current 'revolution' involves selling a lot more of the stuff we ask for. Who knew?

GW's production capacity is also much greater now which is part of the readon they can churn out releases faster now.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/22 13:41:38


Post by: a_typical_hero


 ClockworkZion wrote:
I was specifically refering to the massive stripping back of lore and unit entries, not implying the books are somehow low quality. And outside of Codex Space Marines how many books are actually 200+ pages?
I see, I misunderstood your post then. Sorry! Seems most non Marines hover around ~130 pages. I'll edit my initial reply to better represent reality.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/22 13:48:10


Post by: vict0988


Tyel wrote:
Personally I think the modern codexes are kind of sad, with essentially no lore content compared to how things were decades ago - and often a relatively poor increase in art and photos.

That really cannot be said of the 9th edition Necrons codex, it is stupidly full of new glorious art, 3rd was good, but black and white and rather short. It's 120 pages, it could use another 20, split the unit lore into its own section with a page for each unit's art/fluff and shove the unit portraits of the models into the model gallery section, keep the datasheets clean, 10 last pages of hobby stuff like terrain would make it perfect. The Crusade section is in exactly the wrong place, but that's the only major criticism of the codex I have outside of rules and not having all of a sub-faction's rules, relics, strats together in one place like Thousand Sons has. Best of all would be the ability to take the rules without having to carry the fluff.

The cardinal sin of not assigning different points costs to S+1 AP-3 D1 and S+2 AP-4 D2 is the only thing that has kept me from saying it's the best Necron codex yet.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/22 14:05:13


Post by: the_scotsman


 Gert wrote:
Do you really "need" the GT pack? What does it actually do?


it is absolutely the first book that most of the players in my group tend to recommend new players get, as it has all the mission info and...IIRC the newest point costs??? I dont buy it i just use battlescribe and make up missions so, couldnt tell ya.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/22 14:46:19


Post by: Daedalus81


 Ordana wrote:
Which is why you put the rules online for free without background and pretty pictures and then sell hardcore books with background and pretty pictures for those who want them.

Lower barrier of entry into the game/armies but still sell books to the collectors.


I could see that working. With all the media they have now it should make it easier to recover costs through more players.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Sim-Life wrote:
It works well for much smaller companies with much tighter profit margins than GW


Tighter margins, no brick and mortar, magazine, social media, probably outsourced manufacturing, etc.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/22 15:02:00


Post by: dreadblade


 Blackie wrote:
 dreadblade wrote:


I just think that GW's gradual release schedule results in separate, focused marketing for each faction - a codex, new models, warhammer community articles etc. I personally buy the codex for models I like first to read the lore and learn about the units before buying the models.


Really? You can find all the lore, detailed reviews and pictures you want for free on the internet, without even relying on piracy.


I think you're missing my point. If everything dropped at the same time, people would buy the stuff for their existing armies and that's it. This way, the marketing for each faction is staggered, so people might try new armies when they haven't just spent all their money on their existing army.

As an example, I just bought Hexfire and the GK/TS codexes. I've not bought anything since the SM codex dropped, and it'll probably be another 6 months or more until the CK codex drops. I probably wouldn't have if I'd just bought the codexes for my existing armies, but these are factions I've wanted to get into for a while now, and the new models and codexes dropped at just the right time for me to be interested.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/22 15:09:48


Post by: a_typical_hero


Staggering releases just creates a constant flow of things to talk about the game. I think it is as simple as that.

The death of a (nerdy) game is stagnation. I can't remember which topic it was, but just a few days ago somebody here wrote that Titanicus is unsupported already, because the last release was 2-3 months ago or something like that.

A buzzing community attracts new people.
A silent one, won't.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/22 15:15:08


Post by: Dysartes


 vict0988 wrote:
Tyel wrote:
Personally I think the modern codexes are kind of sad, with essentially no lore content compared to how things were decades ago - and often a relatively poor increase in art and photos.

That really cannot be said of the 9th edition Necrons codex, it is stupidly full of new glorious art, 3rd was good, but black and white and rather short. It's 120 pages, it could use another 20, split the unit lore into its own section with a page for each unit's art/fluff and shove the unit portraits of the models into the model gallery section, keep the datasheets clean, 10 last pages of hobby stuff like terrain would make it perfect. The Crusade section is in exactly the wrong place, but that's the only major criticism of the codex I have outside of rules and not having all of a sub-faction's rules, relics, strats together in one place like Thousand Sons has. Best of all would be the ability to take the rules without having to carry the fluff.

The cardinal sin of not assigning different points costs to S+1 AP-3 D1 and S+2 AP-4 D2 is the only thing that has kept me from saying it's the best Necron codex yet.

Quick question on the Necron book, vict - does it include painted examples of the paint schemes for the Dynasties with sub-faction rules?

I'm looking at planning my own scheme, and want to make sure I don't tread on any official toes


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/22 15:21:32


Post by: Daedalus81


a_typical_hero wrote:
Staggering releases just creates a constant flow of things to talk about the game. I think it is as simple as that.

The death of a (nerdy) game is stagnation. I can't remember which topic it was, but just a few days ago somebody here wrote that Titanicus is unsupported already, because the last release was 2-3 months ago or something like that.

A buzzing community attracts new people.
A silent one, won't.


Right?

Same with with Aeronautica, but lo and behold - a new box announced today and Titanicus is back in stock.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/22 15:41:42


Post by: vict0988


 Dysartes wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
Tyel wrote:
Personally I think the modern codexes are kind of sad, with essentially no lore content compared to how things were decades ago - and often a relatively poor increase in art and photos.

That really cannot be said of the 9th edition Necrons codex, it is stupidly full of new glorious art, 3rd was good, but black and white and rather short. It's 120 pages, it could use another 20, split the unit lore into its own section with a page for each unit's art/fluff and shove the unit portraits of the models into the model gallery section, keep the datasheets clean, 10 last pages of hobby stuff like terrain would make it perfect. The Crusade section is in exactly the wrong place, but that's the only major criticism of the codex I have outside of rules and not having all of a sub-faction's rules, relics, strats together in one place like Thousand Sons has. Best of all would be the ability to take the rules without having to carry the fluff.

The cardinal sin of not assigning different points costs to S+1 AP-3 D1 and S+2 AP-4 D2 is the only thing that has kept me from saying it's the best Necron codex yet.

Quick question on the Necron book, vict - does it include painted examples of the paint schemes for the Dynasties with sub-faction rules?

I'm looking at planning my own scheme, and want to make sure I don't tread on any official toes

Yeah, but it's not perfect. I remember having to dig through old White Dwarf issues to find the right colour for Mephrit. The canon dynasties can also be kind of weird where they switch it up from one unit type to another, so I've had to come up with what I think some of the units would look like, with Ultramarines you can pretty easily be canon-compliant, but I figure if you're just trying to be unique it won't be hard.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/22 15:53:37


Post by: Dysartes


Aye, it's more about figuring out the obvious combinations to avoid than anything else.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/22 16:27:36


Post by: the_scotsman


a_typical_hero wrote:
Staggering releases just creates a constant flow of things to talk about the game. I think it is as simple as that.

The death of a (nerdy) game is stagnation. I can't remember which topic it was, but just a few days ago somebody here wrote that Titanicus is unsupported already, because the last release was 2-3 months ago or something like that.

A buzzing community attracts new people.
A silent one, won't.


yep, and its almost like it creates basically 100% of the imbalance and negative player experiences and sloppy feeling that everyone always whinges on and on and on about endlessly!


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/22 17:14:09


Post by: Hecaton


a_typical_hero wrote:
Nah, you are just being needlessly semantic here. In the spirit of the topic being discussed, Blackie obviously meant that "90%+ of the units" can be played from the codex without automatically losing you the game. The remaining 10% is stuff like SM Servitors, Fortifications, Dhrukari Beast squads and so on.


Well I'd disagree with that, then. There are codexes where you have to go suss out a specific build to make them playable on an even footing with everyone else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
ccs wrote:
Clearly GW doesn't agree with you on giving away the rules for free. And it seems to be working for them, so I'm inclined to think they know how to run their business better than you do.


People thought that about the American auto industry for a long time.

GW is doing well because of inertia. There are other better games with better monetization schemes, but GW is close to "too big to fail" (at least within the minis gaming space). It isn't helped by the fact that the influx of consensus-minded people into the gaming space over the last ten years or so has dramatically increased the amount of "gamers" who see GW's ubiquity and gakky corporate attitude as plusses.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/22 17:52:35


Post by: Gnarlly


a_typical_hero wrote:
Staggering releases just creates a constant flow of things to talk about the game. I think it is as simple as that.

The death of a (nerdy) game is stagnation. I can't remember which topic it was, but just a few days ago somebody here wrote that Titanicus is unsupported already, because the last release was 2-3 months ago or something like that.

A buzzing community attracts new people.
A silent one, won't.


A contrary argument is that constant additions, supplements, and tweaks (ex. points) to a game system (i.e. "support") followed by routine "restarts" to a new edition of the game results in player dissatisfaction and disgruntlement (and a lot of wasted printed paper/books), no matter how cool those new models may look.

Another example from GW's specialty games: look at Blood Bowl which did not have new releases or support for many years. The rules were kept alive by the community and only received minor tweaks as part of a Living Ruleset. Models were supported by third parties for many years. As a testament to the quality of the game's rules, the game was still pretty popular with a lot of community support and a good organized tournament community (the "NAF"). GW has since decided to release two new editions of the game in the past five years after not touching it for more than a decade, with changes often driven by what teams are currently sold by GW and what models are in a box versus the time-tested team rosters that had been tweaked by the community many years before. All of the rules, supplements, and cards produced just five years ago for the "2016" GW version are now mostly unusable with the changes to the current "2020" ruleset. While I admit that new official releases do create more buzz and attract new players, there is a risk to older players that do not want to participate in the GW merry-go-round of rules revisions and new editions and eventually decide to get off. I have been fine with most of GW's recent changes to Blood Bowl, having learned not to buy into their supplements, extra cards, etc., but if GW ever decided to do a complete refresh of the rules (ala 2nd to 3rd edition or 7th to 8th edition 40k), I would bet that most of the BB community would be up in arms and likely go back to the living ruleset.

Regarding 40k, I get it; this is GW's established business model. It makes them a lot of money. It does not make for a better ruleset or game experience for the end user. Personally, I would prefer that GW focus on updating older models across all factions' model ranges (ex. update all of the finecast models) instead of constantly releasing new supplements and datasheets simply because one new space marine model type has a different type of armor or gun. But as long as GW continues to make money hand over fist, this business model will continue . . .


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/22 18:23:30


Post by: Gert


I would say 5 years for an edition is pretty good, especially a smaller scale one like BB.
As for the pre-2016 crowd, was it drawing in new players, or was it mainly the same crowd of original players? I knew it was a thing that existed like the other specialist games but I never really saw a lot about it at the time.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/22 18:30:00


Post by: The_Real_Chris


 Gert wrote:
I would say 5 years for an edition is pretty good, especially a smaller scale one like BB.
As for the pre-2016 crowd, was it drawing in new players, or was it mainly the same crowd of original players? I knew it was a thing that existed like the other specialist games but I never really saw a lot about it at the time.


Yeah. Quite a thriving club and tourney scene with the last pre relaunch world cup in Italy having over a thousand players in attendance.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/22 18:59:26


Post by: Gnarlly


The_Real_Chris wrote:
 Gert wrote:
I would say 5 years for an edition is pretty good, especially a smaller scale one like BB.
As for the pre-2016 crowd, was it drawing in new players, or was it mainly the same crowd of original players? I knew it was a thing that existed like the other specialist games but I never really saw a lot about it at the time.


Yeah. Quite a thriving club and tourney scene with the last pre relaunch world cup in Italy having over a thousand players in attendance.


Prior to the 2016 GW release I saw quite a few new players each year picking up the game and attending tournaments. Of course a new official box set release does help bring in even more new players, but I still question whether some of the changes in the new editions were really necessary and simply driven by GW's goal of selling new models, taking back a slice of the market that 3rd parties had assumed during the 10+ years where GW did not support the game, and selling more rulebooks, supplements, cards, etc.

As examples, since GW's return to Blood Bowl a few of the teams have had their players' skills changed/added to match features included on some models (ex. Skaven Gutter Runners getting a "weeping dagger" skill for no reason other than the new GW models carried daggers; this was added in 2016 and thankfully removed in 2020), some teams have had lineup changes to match the contents of box sets (ex. Underworld losing a blitzer and gaining a gutter runner to match the current skaven team sprue), and some teams have had entirely new models added to replace older models (ex. Necromantic team's Wights being changed to Wraiths; completely different models with different stats and skills - Wraiths have no hands and can't even pick up the ball in the game while the old Wights were great ball-carriers - revisions that significantly impact how the team plays). Completely unnecessary changes to the game in my opinion, but all of these changes were made based on GW's models in their current team box sets. Kind of like 40k's new Death Guard weapon options in their latest codex, where a squad's weapon options are defined by what weapons are available on the sprues in the current unit box set.

As to whether a new edition every 5 years or so is good or bad, with a ruleset like Blood Bowl where the rules have pretty much been the same since the 3rd edition in the early 90's I feel a cycle of new editions is completely unnecessary and is strictly another GW rules cash grab. The 2016 GW edition was not so bad as it was primarily based on the previous Living Ruleset and the teams rosters were relatively unchanged, but with Blood Bowl 2020 GW has shown that they are willing to make some more significant changes to the rules (good or bad . . .). I fear what will come in BB 2024, 2028, etc. simply because GW wants to create yet another edition solely to print more money and not necessarily improve the game.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/22 19:04:09


Post by: Sim-Life


 Daedalus81 wrote:


Tighter margins, no brick and mortar, magazine, social media, probably outsourced manufacturing, etc.


GW has those things because they can afford them. If they didn't they'd cut them like the last few years of 7th when they cut loads of staff and closed stores. If Wyrd can afford can afford to put out free rules and still develop new games, produces podcasts etc I'm sure GW can take a small hit on their currently huge to foster the community and raise the morale in the fanbase.

They won't, because they're a soulless corporate entity, but they could.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/22 19:31:10


Post by: drbored


 Sim-Life wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:


Tighter margins, no brick and mortar, magazine, social media, probably outsourced manufacturing, etc.


GW has those things because they can afford them. If they didn't they'd cut them like the last few years of 7th when they cut loads of staff and closed stores. If Wyrd can afford can afford to put out free rules and still develop new games, produces podcasts etc I'm sure GW can take a small hit on their currently huge to foster the community and raise the morale in the fanbase.

They won't, because they're a soulless corporate entity, but they could.


Judging by the fact that GW puts out more books than models, why would they give up printing books that makes up a huge percentage of their profit? It's not a 'small' hit at all, but a part of that is how they've dug themselves into this hole.

When the big ramping up of product releases started in 7th edition, with campaign books and codexes galore, they tasted the sweet sweet profits that came from just giving an army a codex without needing to update models and its all gone downhill. Now we're getting more campaign books than ever, battletomes and codexes are coming out as fast as they can print them, they release chapter approved and generals handbooks as often as they can, and then they have the 'must-have' rules in White Dwarf to keep those moving as well (to the point now they're starting to add transfer sheets to White Dwarf to make it even more tempting). As more and more side games come out, those side games have tons of rulebooks too. Kill Team, Aeronautica, Titanicus, all of these games end up with TONS of books, because each little model or update requires 1 page of rules and 60 pages of fluff for a 50 dollar price tag.

If they wanted to move to free rules and digital rules and such, they would have done so a decade ago. Someone years ago made the decision to print more books, and that's exactly what they've been doing.

Tough to say what the actual numbers are, but it's not as small a slice as you might think.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/22 19:37:52


Post by: Daedalus81


 Sim-Life wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:


Tighter margins, no brick and mortar, magazine, social media, probably outsourced manufacturing, etc.


GW has those things because they can afford them. If they didn't they'd cut them like the last few years of 7th when they cut loads of staff and closed stores. If Wyrd can afford can afford to put out free rules and still develop new games, produces podcasts etc I'm sure GW can take a small hit on their currently huge to foster the community and raise the morale in the fanbase.

They won't, because they're a soulless corporate entity, but they could.


GW has those things, because the community wanted them and/or they help drive sales.

As I noted earlier their dividend dropped considerably and that dividend is "truly surplus cash". People underestimate how easily things shift especially with the COVID disruptions.

Wyrd has no more than 50 employees. GW has over 2,000. The webstores aren't even comparable which comes with a lot of extra cost for specialized software engineers, cloud services, and so on. And they have to have a lot of extra management to deal with the warehousing in the US. Benefits, payroll, HR. It's all orders of magnitude more complicated - not soulless.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/22 20:57:00


Post by: Gene St. Ealer


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:


Tighter margins, no brick and mortar, magazine, social media, probably outsourced manufacturing, etc.


GW has those things because they can afford them. If they didn't they'd cut them like the last few years of 7th when they cut loads of staff and closed stores. If Wyrd can afford can afford to put out free rules and still develop new games, produces podcasts etc I'm sure GW can take a small hit on their currently huge to foster the community and raise the morale in the fanbase.

They won't, because they're a soulless corporate entity, but they could.


GW has those things, because the community wanted them and/or they help drive sales.

As I noted earlier their dividend dropped considerably and that dividend is "truly surplus cash". People underestimate how easily things shift especially with the COVID disruptions.

Wyrd has no more than 50 employees. GW has over 2,000. The webstores aren't even comparable which comes with a lot of extra cost for specialized software engineers, cloud services, and so on. And they have to have a lot of extra management to deal with the warehousing in the US. Benefits, payroll, HR. It's all orders of magnitude more complicated - not soulless.


It's silly to defend GW for these things though when you look at their gross margins, which are higher/comparable to Apple's. They don't *have* pay out large dividends, they choose to do that. And compare their margin to other players in their space; Hasbro, for instance.

I agree, it's complicated and not soulless, but GW 100% could take a small hit, especially if it benefited them going forward. I don't think they'll be able to sell expensive, short lived, erroneous books into perpetuity.

ETA: The Hasbro example is bad, they also have large gross margins. Ignore that point, I don't think it changes the argument too much.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/22 22:11:44


Post by: Daedalus81


 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

It's silly to defend GW for these things though when you look at their gross margins, which are higher/comparable to Apple's. They don't *have* pay out large dividends, they choose to do that. And compare their margin to other players in their space; Hasbro, for instance.

I agree, it's complicated and not soulless, but GW 100% could take a small hit, especially if it benefited them going forward. I don't think they'll be able to sell expensive, short lived, erroneous books into perpetuity.


Margins are only that high if you're looking at pandemic sales though, which mostly went through the website - their highest margin outlet.

I do think change is possible though - Ordana's point seems most likely to happen.


ETA: The Hasbro example is bad, they also have large gross margins. Ignore that point, I don't think it changes the argument too much


Same problem as above. Hasbro covid margin is huuuge, because everyone ordered MtG all pandemic. In 2019 they were only 11% or so.


Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed @ 2021/09/23 08:53:43


Post by: AngryAngel80


Hecaton wrote:
a_typical_hero wrote:
Nah, you are just being needlessly semantic here. In the spirit of the topic being discussed, Blackie obviously meant that "90%+ of the units" can be played from the codex without automatically losing you the game. The remaining 10% is stuff like SM Servitors, Fortifications, Dhrukari Beast squads and so on.


Well I'd disagree with that, then. There are codexes where you have to go suss out a specific build to make them playable on an even footing with everyone else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
ccs wrote:
Clearly GW doesn't agree with you on giving away the rules for free. And it seems to be working for them, so I'm inclined to think they know how to run their business better than you do.


People thought that about the American auto industry for a long time.

GW is doing well because of inertia. There are other better games with better monetization schemes, but GW is close to "too big to fail" (at least within the minis gaming space). It isn't helped by the fact that the influx of consensus-minded people into the gaming space over the last ten years or so has dramatically increased the amount of "gamers" who see GW's ubiquity and gakky corporate attitude as plusses.


That is an issue right ? Like most american telecom giants, they are rich because they have a near monopoly on the market in the areas they are present. People don't tend to pay them because they like them, in most cases they dislike them pretty heavily but what can you do ? Nothing. People can argue the GW monopoly but the fact remains you can't throw a stone without hitting a GW player in most places that run games or in most groups that you want to play games in. Many other games are way more niche, and that availability of players sells itself with inertia in the market. They could easily have the rules for free and sell the books for the collectors and still they would gobble them up.