So, I like a well-balanced game. I like a game where player skill at the table is the main determinant of victory and defeat. 40k... Is not that. And will probably never be that. GW just doesn't care enough to make a balanced game.

But! I also like customization. I like being able to tweak and modify models and lists and all that. And GW used to be good about that. Nowadays... Not so much.

Look at Dark Eldar. Stonkingly powerful! Really flipping boring.

I feel like, if GW isn't going to do more than cursory balance, they should at least make it so you can customize the ever-loving hell out of your guys. But that's going away, and it sucks.

Agree? Disagree? Am I a moron, or do you feel similarly?

I mean yes, i 100% agree.
I think the best thing you can do, and players like us, is basically fall back to older editions.
My group of friends basically play HH, or 7th (Which is honestly just the same thing) And because 7th is "dead" you have a lot more flexibility to alter rules and house rule things.

Modern GW and 40k, is 100% designed to be plated in a vacuum that is the tournament table top. Its very sanitary, and every game is basically a clean room scenario. Standard table, standard terrain set up, standard LoS blocking terrain and objectives ect ect, there is no more room for thematic or interesting outcomes. Every "casual game" in local stores i find is just getting ready for the next tournament.

The room to make "Your dudes" in the idea of customization and kitting out is very much by the wayside, because there is no room for errors in modern 40k else you get stomped.

Best thing like i said, fall back to older editions, and play the games that are more fun and interesting and have a few wild cards rather then the cookie cutter table/ matches we have now.

Yeah. Friends and I went back to 4th to get that flavor.

9th is just very unthematic, and thats why I and a lot of people i play with, got into 40k, we like the thematics of it all, like swooping in from behind on a heavy tank, massive blasts taking out buildings, vehicles getting flipped into squads, crazy psyker powers going off.

HH has a LOT more of that.

Mildly disagree to strongly disagree -- depending certain factors.

Art of War battle reports ( at least those with Siegler and Lennon ) do a superb job explaining their thought process during a game. Sometimes the other guy just rolls hot and you're on the back foot, but you still have choices even against DE.

Players with less experience will think it's more about the list or that you have no agency and to a small degree it has been depending on the period, but as books roll out that window narrows.

9th is better than 8th in this regard where lists wound up pretty much the same...

Castellan, Loyal 32, Smash Captain
Castellan, Loyal 32, Smash Captain
Castellan, Loyal 32, Smash Captain
ad nauseum

Now lists are hardly ever the same. Someone at LVO went 5-1 with 40+ DA terminators. The top four Drukhari all had different lists and three of them did not share a concept at all. An Ork player went 6-0 with ( gasp ) 3x10 Snaggas. Something that the forum is certain are useless. Likewise the top Thousand Sons ( 5-1 ) player had 14 Tzaangors, because we all know they're useless, too.

Old books ( nids ) or books with limited options ( GK ) will see more parity, but as things get tweaked it will be hard for people to come to the same conclusion.

And the more varied the lists are the less you can come to the tables and say you solved the meta, which means you actually need to be good. This is made possible in large part due to the missions, which only became more interactive than they've ever been.

Problems still exist. If the new books roll out hot we have lots of repair to do to get back to a suitable position. So here's hoping 6 month points and 3 month slates keep things from going off the rails.

To my mind "balance" as in "player skill is the main determining factor in victory" is a distraction. The main thing I expect of balance in a minis game is that "I can use models I like and have a good time," so I tend to frame "balance" in the discussion about what 40k should be as "there should be a good reason to use every Codex, every model, and every option" rather than "all Codexes, models, and options must have equal value in all circumstances," because it's less likely to lead us down the rabbit hole of arguing about whether all things in the game should be the same and wouldn't I be happier just playing chess, which I wouldn't, I don't like chess.

I'm also often less concerned with the top of the roster than the bottom; it's great that there's a tournament netlist for every Codex these days, yay, woo, but there's still a huge pile of models that are utterly worthless even in casual games because of decisions GW made without considering the consequences, and I think telling people "stop whining about your models being crap, there is a netlist you could play in your Codex if you bought entirely different models you may or may not like" is just as bad as telling people "stop whining about your Codex being crap, if you bought a different Codex you could play."

I assume though that with the idea of "I can use models i like and have a good time" We still operate under the guise of you still need to bring the right tool to the job.

Like, if i love running hordes of cheap gaunts and what not, if my oponent runs things that are specifically designed to gun down hordes like taht because they are the models he likes, then thats kosher.

Your not speaking in terms of balance like, 400 points of rubrics should be able to reasonably stand up to 400 points of a knight that has MEQ clearing weapons?
Or you should bring anti armor weapons to deal with armor, things like that.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
9th is just very unthematic, and thats why I and a lot of people i play with, got into 40k, we like the thematics of it all, like swooping in from behind on a heavy tank, massive blasts taking out buildings, vehicles getting flipped into squads, crazy psyker powers going off.

HH has a LOT more of that.

This is where I'm at. I don't feel any thematic engagement with 9th, its just two armies standing opposite each other and rolling dice to see what order you pack away models, but with a bunch of extra steps and book keeping.

Thats why i say its super sterile now, its got not flavor or life, its very robotic.
To me it reminds me of card games, yeah you can build your deck that has crazy wombo combos, but ultimately, your left up to the deck playing the game and hopfully the cards you need are stacked better then your opponents. for the most part you are just along for the ride.
8th and 9th feels like im just along for the ride of a game.

Maybe people should try this mission. If you show up and the only thing you're doing is rolling dice to remove models...and I don't mean this in an insulting manner at all...you're doing it wrong.

Maybe we don't agree on what terrain should look like, but 40K absolutely offers a engaging game when facing a good opponent.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Mildly disagree to strongly disagree -- depending certain factors.

Art of War battle reports ( at least those with Siegler and Lennon ) do a superb job explaining their thought process during a game. Sometimes the other guy just rolls hot and you're on the back foot, but you still have choices even against DE.

Players with less experience will think it's more about the list or that you have no agency and to a small degree it has been depending on the period, but as books roll out that window narrows.

9th is better than 8th in this regard where lists wound up pretty much the same...

Castellan, Loyal 32, Smash Captain
Castellan, Loyal 32, Smash Captain
Castellan, Loyal 32, Smash Captain
ad nauseum

Now lists are hardly ever the same. Someone at LVO went 5-1 with 40+ DA terminators. The top four Drukhari all had different lists and three of them did not share a concept at all. An Ork player went 6-0 with ( gasp ) 3x10 Snaggas. Something that the forum is certain are useless. Likewise the top Thousand Sons ( 5-1 ) player had 14 Tzaangors, because we all know they're useless, too.

Old books ( nids ) or books with limited options ( GK ) will see more parity, but as things get tweaked it will be hard for people to come to the same conclusion.

And the more varied the lists are the less you can come to the tables and say you solved the meta, which means you actually need to be good. This is made possible in large part due to the missions, which only became more interactive than they've ever been.

Problems still exist. If the new books roll out hot we have lots of repair to do to get back to a suitable position. So here's hoping 6 month points and 3 month slates keep things from going off the rails.

I do agree with you, and I do feel a lot of people tend to look at the top players in certain regions and see nothing but doom and gloom when they are in fact looking at top players. A bit like an amateur golfer looking at the top players in the world and thinking: "I don't have a chance. I shouldn't bother." Have a friend who is a really good player in AoS, but then he saw the top lists in the beginning of 3.0 meta and just thought "I can't be bothered with this" and left to play MCP non-stop. He had at best one game in 3.0 and every other opinion was formed from watching online coverage, even if no one where I live was going to be close to performing at those levels.

Now, that is not to say that there aren't issues and problems. GW, for one, needs a much more hands on and frequent updates for the game, and the points should just be free at this point. Yet, overall the scene is exciting despite the over performing aspects. Even despite the hammer to the knees GW gave my Death Guard I am still excited about the overall scene and currently working on new lists. Yet I fear that GW will resist what needs to be done to sell more books.

I'm a little in between, because on the one hand I think 8th/9th edition basic rules are the best 40K has ever had, they're straightforward and got rid of a lot of bloat. Refinements of points and rules are also okay and I feel for the first time Codizes really seem to be pretty coherent in Design. Crusade is also great.
On the other hand abominations like the Plague Marine datasheet, Grots and Squigs being reduced to mere tokens, a pretty uninspired, samey mission design, 9th being far too soon and yet far too slow in bringing 8th Edition Codizes in line really drives me away towards 1page40k or made me decide that, unless 10th finally brings some alternating activations it'll be the last edition to buy for now.
I also have to add that due to Corona and interest in other games like Oathmark and Stargrave there have been few actual 9th edition games (about 12 I think) so far.

I feel like there's been a concerted effort in 40k to remove important unplanned events[such as an important squad failing a morale test and fleeing] from the game.

Don't like it, as is I feel a game is currently about two players pitting plans against each other, but relatively little happening in the game to force players to readjust on the fly to win. Understandable for tournament players, but boring for me.

Just my thoughts though, given 40k is more popular than ever in my area, I don't think many would agree with me, and that's fine.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
I mean yes, i 100% agree.
I think the best thing you can do, and players like us, is basically fall back to older editions.
My group of friends basically play HH, or 7th (Which is honestly just the same thing) And because 7th is "dead" you have a lot more flexibility to alter rules and house rule things.

[...]

The room to make "Your dudes" in the idea of customization and kitting out is very much by the wayside, because there is no room for errors in modern 40k else you get stomped.

Best thing like i said, fall back to older editions, and play the games that are more fun and interesting and have a few wild cards rather then the cookie cutter table/ matches we have now.

The best thing about falling back to old edition is that since you are already stepping out of "the meta" and "only official and most current rules" attitude, all sorts of gentleman agreements and experiments are possible. My group stayed with 7th, we had it heavily houseruled already when 8th hit, but then we just went crazy with throwing ideas for further customisation and in the end we now play an AA, d12 spinoff.

And while having "your dudes" is great, having "your dudes in the game you own" is even greater. But it hinges on having actual hobby friends instead of hobby acquiantances, so I understand that it is not an avenue everyone can take.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Maybe people should try this mission. If you show up and the only thing you're doing is rolling dice to remove models...and I don't mean this in an insulting manner at all...you're doing it wrong.

Maybe we don't agree on what terrain should look like, but 40K absolutely offers a engaging game when facing a good opponent.

Okay, putting aside the usual "blame the player/you're playing wrong" crap, lets just pretend we argued about that for a few pages already. Though that you went STRAIGHT to that without really understanding what I said or mention the lethality of the game speaks volumes.

When I say "it feels like you're rolling dice to put models away" I don't mean things die too quickly. I mean when I play tyranids I don't feel like I'm playing an endless swarm of utterly alien creatures trying to consume everything. When I play necrons I don't feel like I'm playing an impossibly advanced race that has been asleep for countless millenia that imprisons literal gods. I feel like I'm playing slight variations of the same armies with guns that cap out at around S10 and do d6 damage with a smattering of rerolls and +/-1 rerolls thrown in. I never feel like I've pulled off clever movement shenanigans or lured enemies into a trap or really engaged with the game beside prefunctory "move, shoot, maybe charge" actions.

Agreed. Backspace said it best, above … deck aka list building is the game.

Imho, the word “build” does not belong in a 40k related sentence, unless it is followed by the word “model”…

Oh and edit cuz nou makes a great point too…

 Sim-Life wrote:
When I say "it feels like you're rolling dice to put models away" I don't mean things die too quickly. I mean when I play tyranids I don't feel like I'm playing an endless swarm of utterly alien creatures trying to consume everything. When I play necrons I don't feel like I'm playing an impossibly advanced race that has been asleep for countless millenia that imprisons literal gods. I feel like I'm playing slight variations of the same armies with guns that cap out at around S10 and do d6 damage with a smattering of rerolls and +/-1 rerolls thrown in. I never feel like I've pulled off clever movement shenanigans or lured enemies into a trap or really engaged with the game beside prefunctory "move, shoot, maybe charge" actions.

Last I knew you still hadn't played in 9th? Has that changed?

I absolutely feel like I am piloting automatons with piles of sorcerers. GSC absolutely feels like the lore. Crusher Stampede absolutely feels like it should and is just disconnected, because the codex should have been out by now, but the new synapse rules encompass what that should feel like. Necrons stand back up like bosses and C'Tan can absolutely murder. Custodes feel like an army unto each model.

GW has done a fantastic job of defining armies beyond 'this army has super cheap bugs'.

There's tons of positional play and you can see it all the time on bat reps where the players talk through their moves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jeff white wrote:
Agreed. Backspace said it best, above … deck aka list building is the game.

Imho, the word “build” does not belong in a 40k related sentence, unless it is followed by the word “model”…

Oh and edit cuz nou makes a great point too…

There's a real easy way to determine if this is true by just proxying a winning list and playing several games and see if you can win five games in a row against an experienced opponent by simply having a "better" list.

If it were true we'd see more replication of lists that were surefire winners, but we don't. Even the heavily meme'd Thicc City isn't the defacto list for DE.

The issue with the game at large is the same with any other game that can be made into a competition: WAAC meta chasers will always exist.

As long as the game is designed to have a winner and a loser at the end of it, there will always be the people that hyper-tune their lists, which forces others to tend towards the same in order to stay relevant.

The game will never be perfectly balanced, and there will always be something better then everything else, even if only slightly.

GW just need to work on lowering that ceiling.

I feel like part of the point of my OP was missed-40k is badly balanced, by pretty much any reasonable definition of balance.

But, while I'd like it to be otherwise, I'm fully capable of realizing that it will probably never be balanced.

However, what I'd like if that's the case is customization-Dark Eldar, again, are strong. But there's very minimal customization options.
Necrons-they're weak. And they have minimal customization.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Mildly disagree to strongly disagree -- depending certain factors.

Art of War battle reports ( at least those with Siegler and Lennon ) do a superb job explaining their thought process during a game. Sometimes the other guy just rolls hot and you're on the back foot, but you still have choices even against DE.

Players with less experience will think it's more about the list or that you have no agency and to a small degree it has been depending on the period, but as books roll out that window narrows.

9th is better than 8th in this regard where lists wound up pretty much the same...

Castellan, Loyal 32, Smash Captain
Castellan, Loyal 32, Smash Captain
Castellan, Loyal 32, Smash Captain
ad nauseum

Now lists are hardly ever the same. Someone at LVO went 5-1 with 40+ DA terminators. The top four Drukhari all had different lists and three of them did not share a concept at all. An Ork player went 6-0 with ( gasp ) 3x10 Snaggas. Something that the forum is certain are useless. Likewise the top Thousand Sons ( 5-1 ) player had 14 Tzaangors, because we all know they're useless, too.

Old books ( nids ) or books with limited options ( GK ) will see more parity, but as things get tweaked it will be hard for people to come to the same conclusion.

And the more varied the lists are the less you can come to the tables and say you solved the meta, which means you actually need to be good. This is made possible in large part due to the missions, which only became more interactive than they've ever been.

Problems still exist. If the new books roll out hot we have lots of repair to do to get back to a suitable position. So here's hoping 6 month points and 3 month slates keep things from going off the rails.

I wish I could exalt you twice.

The diversity of lists I'm seeing in my local group is higher than I've ever seen before. Stuff the internet says is awful, I'm seeing on tables nearly every week. I have only played since the very end of 6th. So my experience is not that long compared with others, but I've never seen this much list diversity.

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, I like a well-balanced game. I like a game where player skill at the table is the main determinant of victory and defeat. 40k... Is not that. And will probably never be that. GW just doesn't care enough to make a balanced game.

But! I also like customization. I like being able to tweak and modify models and lists and all that. And GW used to be good about that. Nowadays... Not so much.

Look at Dark Eldar. Stonkingly powerful! Really flipping boring.

I feel like, if GW isn't going to do more than cursory balance, they should at least make it so you can customize the ever-loving hell out of your guys. But that's going away, and it sucks.

Agree? Disagree? Am I a moron, or do you feel similarly?

Completely agree.

I think one of the biggest draws of 40k has always been the 'your dudes' aspect, where you can customise your figures and still have them represented.

I think it's a tremendous shame that this has all but fallen by the wayside, with more and more wargear options being consolidated, turned into stratagems or just removed outright.

For those less familiar with Dark Eldar, I have a couple of visual examples to illustrate this.

In 5th, the Archon's wargear options looked like this:


In 9th, it looks like this:


In 5th, the Haemonculus' wargear options looked like this:


In 9th, it looks like this:


It's rather disheartening when 1000-year-old mad scientists who perform all manner of perverted experiments (including on themselves) and utilise a vast array of exotic wargear and arcane artefacts . . . yet appear to have rolled right off an assembly line.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Maybe people should try this mission. If you show up and the only thing you're doing is rolling dice to remove models...and I don't mean this in an insulting manner at all...you're doing it wrong.

Maybe we don't agree on what terrain should look like, but 40K absolutely offers a engaging game when facing a good opponent.

The missions are the problem. Bland, soulless, favoring specific types of armies and rewarding specific types of play. And your comment about needing a good opponent (read as good opponent = good player) for the game to be enjoyable comes off as insulting.

Mike Brandt = The new Matt Ward.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mark my words. GW pandering so heavily to competitive play will not end well for any of us.

The LVO and Nova have fractured the W40K community, split it into two camps… and their toxic tendrils have crept too far in. The disease of competitive play needs cut out lest the whole organism die.

That's rather misleading.

An Archon comes with a Shadowfield and can take:

Agoniser - ( used to be poison, no armor ) - still poison and removes most armor
Huskblade - ( instant death ) - a dead concept
Venom Blade - ( poison 2+ ) - still the same
Blast Pistol

He can also take:

Animus Vitae - MW grenade and temp PfP buff
Djinn Blade - +2A; 1s hit bearer
Helm of Spite - deny
Parasite's Kiss - healing pistol
Soul-Seeker - sniper pistol
Writ of the Living Muse - reroll wounds of 1 aura
The Obsidian Veil - 4++
Armor of Misery - 3+ save and -1 to be hit in melee

The old stuff did:

Ghostplate - 4+/6++
Soul-trap - double S if you kill a character
Djin Blade - +2A and doubles hit weilder
Clone Field - Ignore D3 attacks
Shadow Field - exactly the same as it is now
Webway Portal - put units into portal, which is a strat now

If anything the options have more variety and interaction. And THEN on top of that you have WL traits, which include rerolls, healing when killing, fight last, +1S to weapons, +1S/+1A, FNP and ignore attrition, and steal CP.

If paying points is the only thing that makes you think you have choice I'm not sure what to tell you.

Compare the customization of 3.5ed. guard with 9th Ed guard in the "your guys" department

 Daedalus81 wrote:
[spoiler]
If paying points is the only thing that makes you think you have choice I'm not sure what to tell you.

Points are the balancing factor in the fething game, is the problem. GW deciding that all character customization options all need to cost the same (i.e., free, Relics/Warlord traits) means that there IS actually no choice, because you do actually have basically 95% of those options being non-options

The archon CAN take

-Roll 1d6 for each stratagem your opponent uses, on a 6 gain a CP
-+1S +1A
-+1S to non-relic weapons
-5+FNP vs Mortals and allies within 6" ignore attrition modifiers
-+1A and regain 1 wound for each model killed within 3"

but he will never do that. Why? because all those things compete with, and cost THE SAME AS

-reroll all failed to-hit and to-wound rolls.

Just, mathematically, you can INSTANTLY rule out ever taking 50% of the warlord traits available to the archon, because RR hits and RR wounds is ALWAYS superior to ALL of them.

So sure. Options, in theory, do still exist for characters. but they don't actually...do anything, because GW has completely 100% abdicated the responsibility to balance any of them, at all.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Maybe people should try this mission. If you show up and the only thing you're doing is rolling dice to remove models...and I don't mean this in an insulting manner at all...you're doing it wrong.

Maybe we don't agree on what terrain should look like, but 40K absolutely offers a engaging game when facing a good opponent.

For me, the idea of the new missions providing a radically different play experience falls flat when I look closely and find that it's the exact same progressive scoring multiple-objective take-and-hold (feat. ITC secondaries) as all the other 9th Ed missions, just with different side objectives on top.

You could rename 'Prime Explosives' to 'Nail Up Flyers For Your Lost Dog' and it wouldn't make an iota of difference, because all the objective does is give you bonus VP at the end. And despite the intro blurb describing it as a 'decisive strike', both players have the exact same objectives.

Remember when missions had attackers and defenders? Or could take place at night? Or involved sentries? Or were about retreating from a superior foe, or holding out to the last man? Those are the kind of missions I miss; where the mission shaped the gameplay (and narrative!) in a fundamental way rather than just providing side objectives.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
To my mind "balance" as in "player skill is the main determining factor in victory" is a distraction. The main thing I expect of balance in a minis game is that "I can use models I like and have a good time," so I tend to frame "balance" in the discussion about what 40k should be as "there should be a good reason to use every Codex, every model, and every option" rather than "all Codexes, models, and options must have equal value in all circumstances," because it's less likely to lead us down the rabbit hole of arguing about whether all things in the game should be the same and wouldn't I be happier just playing chess, which I wouldn't, I don't like chess.

I share the same sentiment. Except for the Chess part, I like Chess quite a bit.

 the_scotsman wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
[spoiler]
If paying points is the only thing that makes you think you have choice I'm not sure what to tell you.

Points are the balancing factor in the fething game, is the problem. GW deciding that all character customization options all need to cost the same (i.e., free, Relics/Warlord traits) means that there IS actually no choice, because you do actually have basically 95% of those options being non-options

The archon CAN take

-Roll 1d6 for each stratagem your opponent uses, on a 6 gain a CP
-+1S +1A
-+1S to non-relic weapons
-5+FNP vs Mortals and allies within 6" ignore attrition modifiers
-+1A and regain 1 wound for each model killed within 3"

but he will never do that. Why? because all those things compete with, and cost THE SAME AS

-reroll all failed to-hit and to-wound rolls.

Just, mathematically, you can INSTANTLY rule out ever taking 50% of the warlord traits available to the archon, because RR hits and RR wounds is ALWAYS superior to ALL of them.

So sure. Options, in theory, do still exist for characters. but they don't actually...do anything, because GW has completely 100% abdicated the responsibility to balance any of them, at all.

Also, maybe even more important, you only get one relic by default. You can pick one character to do one thing, or spend CP to have a second character also do one thing.

Meanwhile in Horus Heresy I can choose to give one Tech-Priest Dominus an Abeyant and Machinator array to make him into something like a quadrupedal robot-fixing Doctor Octopus with an inferno pistol up his sleeve, and another Dominus an Eradication Ray, Power Axe, and... whatever the scanner array is called, and have him be a combat assistant to the close combat robots. The amount of wargear you have to remember is complex, no doubt, but it allows me to personalize my characters in a way 9th Ed really doesn't.

Even in the background armies department, GW"s older editions were more flavorful. I mean compare the Armageddon doctrines between editions:

Mechanized, Conscript platoons, Ratlings, Xeno-Fighters (Orks), Storm Trooper squads

Even just the Doctrine names say you get an army of hive-conscripts mounted in transports, who are accompanied by elite warriors, aren't afraid to fight alongside abhumans, and kick Ork ass.

"industrial efficiency" - vehicles ignore an AP of -1, and infantry rapid fire at 18".

This tells me that my men prefer to fight on foot at medium range, and my vehicles have thicker armor but only against AP -1 I guess. ????

 the_scotsman wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
[spoiler]
If paying points is the only thing that makes you think you have choice I'm not sure what to tell you.

Points are the balancing factor in the fething game, is the problem. GW deciding that all character customization options all need to cost the same (i.e., free, Relics/Warlord traits) means that there IS actually no choice, because you do actually have basically 95% of those options being non-options

The archon CAN take

-Roll 1d6 for each stratagem your opponent uses, on a 6 gain a CP
-+1S +1A
-+1S to non-relic weapons
-5+FNP vs Mortals and allies within 6" ignore attrition modifiers
-+1A and regain 1 wound for each model killed within 3"

but he will never do that. Why? because all those things compete with, and cost THE SAME AS

-reroll all failed to-hit and to-wound rolls.

Just, mathematically, you can INSTANTLY rule out ever taking 50% of the warlord traits available to the archon, because RR hits and RR wounds is ALWAYS superior to ALL of them.

So sure. Options, in theory, do still exist for characters. but they don't actually...do anything, because GW has completely 100% abdicated the responsibility to balance any of them, at all.

Fair point, but if they're dropping the idea of things being balance then they can pick whatever they like the most, really.

I don't think you'd pick much of the old stuff, either. There's plenty of false choice there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:
For me, the idea of the new missions providing a radically different play experience falls flat when I look closely and find that it's the exact same progressive scoring multiple-objective take-and-hold (feat. ITC secondaries) as all the other 9th Ed missions, just with different side objectives on top.

You could rename 'Prime Explosives' to 'Nail Up Flyers For Your Lost Dog' and it wouldn't make an iota of difference, because all the objective does is give you bonus VP at the end. And despite the intro blurb describing it as a 'decisive strike', both players have the exact same objectives.

Remember when missions had attackers and defenders? Or could take place at night? Or involved sentries? Or were about retreating from a superior foe, or holding out to the last man? Those are the kind of missions I miss; where the mission shaped the gameplay (and narrative!) in a fundamental way rather than just providing side objectives.

The dynamic I am most interested in personally is where I interact with the other player and their decisions.

The asymmetric sort of stuff is valuable to people and I enjoyed them, but they're not really what I like these days - and I think it fits better in Crusade anyway ( like below ). GW put out beta Maelstrom and the community really dropped the ball. The people who valued that mode should have been pushing hard to get GW to tweak and make that part of the release schedule.

WL Trait and Relic imbalance is the least of issues and not something that can be fully fixed without assigning points to each one. As long as every model in your case/cabinet are useful I'll be happy (Relics are not models), it's more important that Traits and Relics are thematic and exciting to use than exactly balanced. At the end of the day you're missing out on at most 20 pts by taking a bad Relic, that's not the end of the world. What is the end of the world is if you trade a fun relic that lets you teleport with a unit once per game for a once per game flamer that deals 1 wimpy mortal wound, where is the power fantasy in that? If a faction is overperforming and every list in that faction uses the same 1-2 relics like 8th edition Ironstone and Killa Klaw then I think it'd be a good nerf target. Part of the problem is where do you change relics? In each new codex? That's a rather rare opportunity. I think all Relics and Traits should go in Chapter Approved instead, that'd mean two chances each year to update and rebalance Relics without new players being bamboozled by half their relics having gotten online Errata, GW could just make a small note of which Relics are new, changed or removed.

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, I like a well-balanced game. I like a game where player skill at the table is the main determinant of victory and defeat. 40k... Is not that. And will probably never be that. GW just doesn't care enough to make a balanced game.

But! I also like customization. I like being able to tweak and modify models and lists and all that. And GW used to be good about that. Nowadays... Not so much.

Look at Dark Eldar. Stonkingly powerful! Really flipping boring.

I feel like, if GW isn't going to do more than cursory balance, they should at least make it so you can customize the ever-loving hell out of your guys. But that's going away, and it sucks.

Agree? Disagree? Am I a moron, or do you feel similarly?

I'm still hoping they'll learn to balance the game, that doesn't mean I don't also want customization, but maybe a bit less than you. I think every single unit being a unique snowflake is too much because it'll slow the game down, a few unique snowflakes is fine and spamming one particular melee or ranged weapon in a unit is fine as long as each variant is decent.

If we're being generous they've had 20 years and 5 edition revision with which to learn how to balance the game (assuming balance only really started being a major issue when the internet allowed people worldwide to complain about it together, instead of just playing casual lists with the odd That Guy in the group).

If they haven't learned by now they never will.

there are those that have learned, they are just not working for GW any more

so each time you have new people, with new ideas that need to learn from scratch, and as soon they have, they leave for different reasons

for OPs question

One Page Rules is the game, 8th Edition wanted to be but was not executed well and changed mid-edition to be something different
(the minimum core rules with additional army rules etc), so for this kind of game, just stick with the original idea (OPR) GW failed to copy

for the current version of the game, GW just don't know what the game should be, they just know what they want from the game

they want it to be something that sells models and books
they want it to be a strong IP all people recognize even if they don't play or read the books
they want it to be casual and fun with "winning" being not important
they want to control the event/tournament scene to avoid that those do their own thing (as "we don't need GW to play 40k tournaments and make our own version of the game" during 5th-7th)
they want it to be a skirmish game so new people can start small, but also large so people can use they whole collection (or buy more to play against people with large armies)

and the current version of 40k is the result of trying to achieve everything at once

 Daedalus81 wrote:


That's rather misleading.

An Archon comes with a Shadowfield [What if I don't want the bloody Shadowfield? What if, instead, I want a Clone Field?] and can take:

Agoniser - ( used to be poison, no armor ) - still poison and removes most armor [And is utter garbage because wounds have multiplied drastically yet it remains D1]
Huskblade - ( instant death ) - a dead concept [And yet, hilariously, the most expensive weapon.]
Venom Blade - ( poison 2+ ) - still the same [No, no it isn't. Even aside from the fact that the game has changed around it, the Venom Blade used to be the cheap weapon - it was 1/4th of the cost of the Agoniser and 1/6th the cost of the Huskblade. Now it's just 5pts cheaper than the Huskblade and exactly the same price as the Agoniser.
Blast Pistol [Whoop-de-doo.]

[What you're also ignoring is that these weapons used to fulfil actual niches. The Venom Blade, as mentioned, was a very cheap option for an Archon who wanted to focus on, for example, shooting. Then you had the Agoniser, which was the 'standard' weapon. It ignored armour and always wounded on a 4+. It was more expensive than the Venom Blade but was more effective and also largely self-contained. And at the highest end you had the Huskblade - which was intended to hunt characters and monsters. It was riskier, due to S3, but deadly if if it got even a single wound through. What's more, it could be combined with other wargear like the Soul Trap and Combat Drugs Dispenser to mitigate some of its weaknesses (albeit at even greater cost). Now, however, Soul Trap and CDD are gone completely and the weapons have been so homogenised in both cost and function that it barely even constitutes a choice anymore.]

He can also take:
[Hang on, we're not finished yet. Where is the Blaster? This was a vital part of the Archon's arsenal and now it's just gone outright with no replacement whatsoever. Why are you just glossing over that like it's no big deal?]

Animus Vitae - MW grenade and temp PfP buff
Djinn Blade - +2A; 1s hit bearer
Helm of Spite - deny
Parasite's Kiss - healing pistol
Soul-Seeker - sniper pistol
Writ of the Living Muse - reroll wounds of 1 aura
The Obsidian Veil - 4++
Armor of Misery - 3+ save and -1 to be hit in melee

The old stuff did:

Ghostplate - 4+/6++
Soul-trap - double S if you kill a character
Djin Blade - +2A and doubles hit weilder
Clone Field - Ignore D3 attacks
Shadow Field - exactly the same as it is now
Webway Portal - put units into portal, which is a strat now

If anything the options have more variety and interaction. And THEN on top of that you have WL traits, which include rerolls, healing when killing, fight last, +1S to weapons, +1S/+1A, FNP and ignore attrition, and steal CP.

If paying points is the only thing that makes you think you have choice I'm not sure what to tell you.

I've given some of my thoughts in Red above but this is completely disingenuous.

Firstly, you are ignoring both the loss of options (e.g. the Blaster) and the homogenisation of what options the Archon has left.

Second, you are being completely dishonest by both pretending that standard wargear is equivalent to artefacts (hint: it isn't) and also ignoring the restrictions that go with said artefacts.

With the old Archon, you had the same wargear selection regardless of what Kabal you were playing him as. Now, however, you're automatically locked out of several artefact and WLT choices just from that choice alone. e.g. if I take any Kabal other than Poison Tongue then I'm automatically locked out of the only weapon with more than 12" of range.

Moreover, the restriction on one-artefact-per-character means most of the choices that used to work together now can't be taken together. If I take the Soul-Seeker in lieu of a Blaster then I'm now locked out of the Archon's only worthwhile melee weapon (because that, too, is now an artefact). I used to be able to take a Clone Field and Ghostplate. Now I have to pick between the two equivalents and, in addition to also being locked out of both a ranged weapon and a worthwhile melee weapon, I'm still left paying for a Shadowfield that I didn't want in the first place.


Also also, I notice you didn't even try to address the Haemonculus. Want to tell me where my artefact equivalent of the Hexrifle is? Or even the humble Liquifier Gun? Or, you know, their entire melee arsenal? How about the Shattershard or the Orb of Despair or the Soul Trap (yeah, Haemonculi could take those as well)?

I notice, too, that you don't seem to apply this standard to other armies. I certainly haven't seen you complaining that the Autarch has retained his ranged weapons and non-artefact wargear, and saying instead that the former should be removed and the latter only available as an artefact. I haven't heard people say that SM characters should be reduced to a Power Sword, Chainsword and Plasma Pistol, that bikes and jump packs should be removed outright, and that wargear such as Power Fists and Relic Blades should be available only as artefacts.

Why is this standard only ever applied to Dark Eldar? It's hard to see it as anything other than people arguing in bad faith where any amount of wargear loss is apparently justified, provided it's inflicted on this specific army.

I didn't bother with the Haemonculus, because I don't really have time to run through every single thing. It wasn't an attempt to be misleading.

As noted above - I guarantee you those old options weren't all good picks. Huskblade is either incredible or trash depending on when Eternal Warrior came out and what people used.

The initial problem was customization of characters if they no longer care about balance. If they don't care about balance then they're free to go into whatever kabal, cult, etc that makes them happy.

I don't agree with the notion that adding every weapon under the sun as the only path to making bespoke characters.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

As noted above - I guarantee you those old options weren't all good picks. Huskblade is either incredible or trash depending on when Eternal Warrior came out and what people used.

I never once claimed that every past option was a good one. Hell, I'm pretty sure I specifically referenced that there were duds among them.

I just think that 'okay, let's see if we can make some of these dud items better' is a better response than 'okay, let's just remove all these options entirely, whether they're duds or not'.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

The initial problem was customization of characters if they no longer care about balance. If they don't care about balance then they're free to go into whatever kabal, cult, etc that makes them happy.

That addresses literally none of the points I raised.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

I don't agree with the notion that adding every weapon under the sun as the only path to making bespoke characters.

I appreciate your confirming here that you're simply not prepared to argue in good faith.

It's not just weapon options. There are other wargear options as well. Consider the following two IG HQ characters custom made from 3.5:

"Colonel Ivan Belinski, Commander of the 53rd Chortaxi Vanguard"
- Heroic Senior Officer
- Trademark Item (Golden Skull-Cane)
- Bionics
- Plasma Pistol (Master Crafted)
- Storm Bolter
- Refractor Field
- Carapace Armor
- Medallion Crimson

"Captain Tomas van Lourd of the 267th Armageddon Steel Legion"
- Senior Officer
- Refractor Field
- Plasma Pistol
- Power Sword
- Frag Grenades

Ivan holds the line rather than preferring to enter close-combat himself, positioned in the center of his defensive works likely with a company - or regimental - standard. He is a hero, a decorated veteran whose wounds have been patched by bionic replacement. His staff is a symbol to his men, held high and waving as he bellows orders to those around him.

Tomas, meanwhile, is a competent but unexceptional company captain, finding most of his time issuing orders from within his Armageddon Chimera. He doesn't wear bulky carapace armor, and carries close-combat equipment to see a mechanized assault home. He only disembarks when necessary however, and dispenses with the typical flair and flash of some of his more heroic and inspiring peers.

Consider them in 9th:
Colonel Ivan:
Company Commander with Bolter, Plasma Pistol

Captain Thomas: company Commander with power sword, plasma pistol

Woo, so distinct and different!

 oni wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Maybe people should try this mission. If you show up and the only thing you're doing is rolling dice to remove models...and I don't mean this in an insulting manner at all...you're doing it wrong.

Maybe we don't agree on what terrain should look like, but 40K absolutely offers a engaging game when facing a good opponent.

The missions are the problem. Bland, soulless, favoring specific types of armies and rewarding specific types of play. And your comment about needing a good opponent (read as good opponent = good player) for the game to be enjoyable comes off as insulting.

Mike Brandt = The new Matt Ward.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mark my words. GW pandering so heavily to competitive play will not end well for any of us.

The LVO and Nova have fractured the W40K community, split it into two camps… and their toxic tendrils have crept too far in. The disease of competitive play needs cut out lest the whole organism die.

The "tiny, vocal minority" of competitive players is not as small as the fluffhammer advocates would like to believe or GW wouldn't be building their game to cater to the competitive players. Also I'm not sure why fluffhammer players care as they can just play another edition or houserule. If you aren't playing in tournaments, why does the tournament meta affect your garagehammer games?

Telling "fluff hammer" players to feth off and find another game (or edition) to play is peak DakkaDakka.

I'm not really enjoying 9th. No idea what GW is trying to do aside from drive some of us out. I'm at the point where staying home and painting models is 100% more entertaining and more exciting than trying to play a game. I have no expectations that I will play any future editions. I miss looking forward to having a game. I constantly think about selling my 9th edition army, cards and books and that really bothers me.

 oni wrote:


Mike Brandt = The new Matt Ward.

I sincerely wish GW had a rules writer as passionate about the game and writing rules for it as Ward. His armies had power level issues but they were fun, dynamic, had imaginative and fluffy special rules and were actually interesting to build different lists for. If GW made the surprise announcement that Ward wrote the new Tyranid codex I'd be back to the game in a heartbeat.

40K's balance has been "meh, good enough" for editions now.

You can have a bit of fun with the game if it isn't taken too seriously, but once one side or the other decides they want to play to win, the whole thing goes into a flaming dumpster pile.

And GW doesn't care enough to fix it, because that'd take resources better spent drafting up new models and selling them by the fistful.

Talk about disingenuous arguments. You have deliberately just ignored half the stuff for the 8th Ed profiles and added the extra "lore" section to your 3.5 Ed example to make it sound better.
So let's do it properly this time.
9th Ed
Colonel Noa Fise, Mordian 87th: Company Commander
- Senior Officer
- Voice of Command
- Refractor Field
- Chainsword
- Plasma Pistol
- Order of the Iron Star of Mordian (Relic)
- Iron Discipline (Warlord Trait)

Colonel Fise is a hardened veteran of the Mordian 87th, having been promoted from a Lieutenant in a support company all the way to Regimental Command. His many decades of service have earned him the most prestigious Order of the Iron Star, an honour that both serves as recognition of his talents and is rumoured to have been blessed by the Emperor to ensure His loyal servants do not fall in battle. Fise has the respect and admiration of the entire 87th, so much so that they will not flee under his watchful eye, keen to ensure the Regiment lives up to the glorious standards set by its commanding officer.

Major Kylan Jakson, Catachan 22nd "The Yellow Snakes": Company Commander
- Senior Officer
- Voice of Command
- Refractor Field
- Power Sword
- Bolt Pistol
- Mamorph Tuskblade (Relic)
- Old Grudges (Warlord Trait)

Major Jakson is a typical Imperial Hero. Dashing, brave, and with a habit of getting stuck into the dirt alongside his soldiers. As a youth, Jakson hunted a famous Shambling Mamorph and wet his Catachan fang in its blood, an act which is rumoured to bring great strength to the bearer. This ritual did not bring Jakson luck, however, and on his first deployment two-thirds of his Company were annihilated by a rampaging Ork Waaaagh, earning him a nasty scar and a deep seated hatred of the Xenos. This hatred lives on to this day, with Jakson volunteering his Regiment for the dangerous duty of hunting Orks in the jungles of Armageddon, ever looking to show the Xenos the meaning of the phrase "an eye for an eye".

Of course, you could always do this magical thing of using Crusade rules to beef up your army's "fluff factor" because Crusade forces are not limited to Crusade Campaigns, all you need is to ask your opponent if they're cool with it.

 vipoid wrote:
I appreciate your confirming here that you're simply not prepared to argue in good faith.

Umm, no. I just disagree that a blaster adds a meaningful choice. Sometimes you have to pull off the nostalgia glasses.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Telling "fluff hammer" players to feth off and find another game (or edition) to play is peak DakkaDakka.

Maybe we should do it, lets all the fluff-hammer players move to another game and see how long it takes for the rest to follow

Well Battletech has had quite a resurgence

 auticus wrote:
Well Battletech has had quite a resurgence

Yeah, but I have a feeling that's more due to increase of accessibility than any other reason.

Dunno without a poll, but the groups I am in that regularly get new 40k players switching over give a lot of other reasons for enjoying the game as well!

 kodos wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Telling "fluff hammer" players to feth off and find another game (or edition) to play is peak DakkaDakka.

Maybe we should do it, lets all the fluff-hammer players move to another game and see how long it takes for the rest to follow

If all the fluff-hammer players left GW would tank and maybe 40k would get bought by a company that actually wants to design a good game.

 Gert wrote:

Spoiler:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It's not just weapon options. There are other wargear options as well. Consider the following two IG HQ characters custom made from 3.5:

"Colonel Ivan Belinski, Commander of the 53rd Chortaxi Vanguard"
- Heroic Senior Officer
- Trademark Item (Golden Skull-Cane)
- Bionics
- Plasma Pistol (Master Crafted)
- Storm Bolter
- Refractor Field
- Carapace Armor
- Medallion Crimson

"Captain Tomas van Lourd of the 267th Armageddon Steel Legion"
- Senior Officer
- Refractor Field
- Plasma Pistol
- Power Sword
- Frag Grenades

Ivan holds the line rather than preferring to enter close-combat himself, positioned in the center of his defensive works likely with a company - or regimental - standard. He is a hero, a decorated veteran whose wounds have been patched by bionic replacement. His staff is a symbol to his men, held high and waving as he bellows orders to those around him.

Tomas, meanwhile, is a competent but unexceptional company captain, finding most of his time issuing orders from within his Armageddon Chimera. He doesn't wear bulky carapace armor, and carries close-combat equipment to see a mechanized assault home. He only disembarks when necessary however, and dispenses with the typical flair and flash of some of his more heroic and inspiring peers.

Consider them in 9th:
Colonel Ivan:
Company Commander with Bolter, Plasma Pistol

Captain Thomas: company Commander with power sword, plasma pistol

Woo, so distinct and different!

Talk about disingenuous arguments. You have deliberately just ignored half the stuff for the 8th Ed profiles and added the extra "lore" section to your 3.5 Ed example to make it sound better.
So let's do it properly this time.
9th Ed
Colonel Noa Fise, Mordian 87th: Company Commander
- Senior Officer
- Voice of Command
- Refractor Field
- Chainsword
- Plasma Pistol
- Order of the Iron Star of Mordian (Relic)
- Iron Discipline (Warlord Trait)

Colonel Fise is a hardened veteran of the Mordian 87th, having been promoted from a Lieutenant in a support company all the way to Regimental Command. His many decades of service have earned him the most prestigious Order of the Iron Star, an honour that both serves as recognition of his talents and is rumoured to have been blessed by the Emperor to ensure His loyal servants do not fall in battle. Fise has the respect and admiration of the entire 87th, so much so that they will not flee under his watchful eye, keen to ensure the Regiment lives up to the glorious standards set by its commanding officer.

Major Kylan Jakson, Catachan 22nd "The Yellow Snakes": Company Commander
- Senior Officer
- Voice of Command
- Refractor Field
- Power Sword
- Bolt Pistol
- Mamorph Tuskblade (Relic)
- Old Grudges (Warlord Trait)

Major Jakson is a typical Imperial Hero. Dashing, brave, and with a habit of getting stuck into the dirt alongside his soldiers. As a youth, Jakson hunted a famous Shambling Mamorph and wet his Catachan fang in its blood, an act which is rumoured to bring great strength to the bearer. This ritual did not bring Jakson luck, however, and on his first deployment two-thirds of his Company were annihilated by a rampaging Ork Waaaagh, earning him a nasty scar and a deep seated hatred of the Xenos. This hatred lives on to this day, with Jakson volunteering his Regiment for the dangerous duty of hunting Orks in the jungles of Armageddon, ever looking to show the Xenos the meaning of the phrase "an eye for an eye".

Of course, you could always do this magical thing of using Crusade rules to beef up your army's "fluff factor" because Crusade forces are not limited to Crusade Campaigns, all you need is to ask your opponent if they're cool with it.

Let's dig in a little on this, shall we?

- Heroic Senior Officer Optional upgrade
- Trademark Item (Golden Skull-Cane) Optional wargear purchase
- Bionics Optional wargear purchase
- Plasma Pistol (Master Crafted) Optional wargear purchase with additional optional upgrade
- Storm Bolter Optional wargear purchase
- Refractor Field Optional wargear purchase
- Carapace Armor Optional wargear purchase
- Medallion Crimson Optional wargear purchase

- Senior Officer Possibly optional upgrade - technically, the 3.5 Command Squad only requires an Officer, which could be Junior/Senior/Heroic Senior. I can't recall off the top of my head if there was a requirement to have an HQ Command Squad be Senior/Heroic Senior as opposed to Junior.
- Refractor Field Optional wargear purchase
- Plasma Pistol Optional wargear purchase
- Power Sword Optional wargear purchase
- Frag Grenades Optional wargear purchase

Officers, per the 3.5 'dex, only come with a laspistol and close combat weapon. Their only native special rules are being an Independent Character who can let nearby units use his Ld score for relevant tests (so long as the Officer isn't Pinned/in CC/Falling Back). Anything extra, literally anything at all, is something paid for using points and chosen deliberately by the player. Also, the armory allows for ~100pts of upgrades for Senior Officers and ~50pts of upgrades for any other model that has access, and some of the options are locked into specific units (Force Weapons can only be taken by Sanctioned Psykers, but Power Weapons can be taken by Officers/Storm Trooper Sgts/Priests/Rough Rider Sgts, and a Bolt Pistol can be taken by anyone). Thus, there are some limitations, but generally you are free to take whatever you please (or not, if you'd rather save the points). I'll post screenshots of the 3.5 armory/unit sheet in a spoiler below for reference.

Now, your examples:

- Senior Officer Baked into the unit, cannot be removed; also, only exists to modify VoC slightly and/or do keyword stuff
- Voice of Command Baked into the unit, cannot be removed
- Refractor Field Baked into the unit; cannot be removed
- Chainsword Technically optional wargear purchase, though it is free
- Plasma Pistol Optional wargear purchase
- Order of the Iron Star of Mordian (Relic) Technically optional wargear purchase, though it is free
- Iron Discipline (Warlord Trait) Optional choice, though it is free

- Senior Officer Baked into the unit, cannot be removed; also, only exists to modify VoC slightly and/or do keyword stuff
- Voice of Command Baked into the unit; cannot be removed
- Refractor Field Baked into the unit; cannot be removed
- Power Sword Optional wargear purchase
- Bolt Pistol Optional wargear purchase
- Mamorph Tuskblade (Relic) Technically optional wargear upgrade, though it is free
- Old Grudges (Warlord Trait) Optional choice, though it is free

So a little under half of the things you listed for your choices aren't actually choices - you get them whether you want them or not, and you can't give them up for something else. I think you're right to chide Unit for ignoring Warlord Traits, but I'm not sure those are exactly 1:1 since you get them for free and I don't think you can choose not to take one. Also, outside of Relics/Warlord traits, you don't have any wargear choices that aren't weapons, and a good number of the Relics/Warlord Traits are locked behind <Regiment> keywords (ie. you can't have your Mordian or Armageddon CC wear not!Terminator Armor regardless of what yourdude's headcanon is, only Vostroyans get that). That, I think, is the crux of the matter - a lot of what you choose is either "must take 1 of: ..." or just a weapon. You can't give your Platoon Commander an Honorifica Imperialis to commemorate that time he fought a Daemon Prince to a standstill for that crucial turn you needed to bring up reinforcements - that option does not exist.

PS - I'm not in the camp that all upgrades MUST be paid for with points, I'm fine with certain choices being limited in other ways (ie. Relics being 0-1 outside of Stratagems/Special Characters). The point (fnar fnar) is that the 3.5 dex allows you to choose to pay those points to make the character as you want them to be - you have to actively choose to make them a Heroic Senior Officer as opposed to them just being a Heroic Senior Officer, same as everyone else's.

Edit: forgot the last few descriptions

 auticus wrote:
Dunno without a poll, but the groups I am in that regularly get new 40k players switching over give a lot of other reasons for enjoying the game as well!

Oh, it's a great game, but it's historically been one of those that the responses I got until the KS were all about how either everything needed to be special ordered because it was hard to find stores with regular stock and/ or complaints about how everything was metal.

nou wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
I mean yes, i 100% agree.
I think the best thing you can do, and players like us, is basically fall back to older editions.
My group of friends basically play HH, or 7th (Which is honestly just the same thing) And because 7th is "dead" you have a lot more flexibility to alter rules and house rule things.

[...]

The room to make "Your dudes" in the idea of customization and kitting out is very much by the wayside, because there is no room for errors in modern 40k else you get stomped.

Best thing like i said, fall back to older editions, and play the games that are more fun and interesting and have a few wild cards rather then the cookie cutter table/ matches we have now.

The best thing about falling back to old edition is that since you are already stepping out of "the meta" and "only official and most current rules" attitude, all sorts of gentleman agreements and experiments are possible. My group stayed with 7th, we had it heavily houseruled already when 8th hit, but then we just went crazy with throwing ideas for further customisation and in the end we now play an AA, d12 spinoff.

And while having "your dudes" is great, having "your dudes in the game you own" is even greater. But it hinges on having actual hobby friends instead of hobby acquiantances, so I understand that it is not an avenue everyone can take.

Indeed, that is what our group did-we use 5th as the core rules set with a few house rules imported from other compatible editions and players use their favorite dex from 3rd-7th so the games are FUN. that is the most important part.

kodos wrote:there are those that have learned, they are just not working for GW any more

so each time you have new people, with new ideas that need to learn from scratch, and as soon they have, they leave for different reasons

for OPs question

One Page Rules is the game, 8th Edition wanted to be but was not executed well and changed mid-edition to be something different
(the minimum core rules with additional army rules etc), so for this kind of game, just stick with the original idea (OPR) GW failed to copy

for the current version of the game, GW just don't know what the game should be, they just know what they want from the game

they want it to be something that sells models and books
they want it to be a strong IP all people recognize even if they don't play or read the books
they want it to be casual and fun with "winning" being not important
they want to control the event/tournament scene to avoid that those do their own thing (as "we don't need GW to play 40k tournaments and make our own version of the game" during 5th-7th)
they want it to be a skirmish game so new people can start small, but also large so people can use they whole collection (or buy more to play against people with large armies)

and the current version of 40k is the result of trying to achieve everything at once

GWs current staff do not even understand the 40K universe or have the passion the original designers had, and especially not their humor (orks were originally modeled after football hooligans after all). Andy chambers went freelance a long time ago (after 5th ed) and it shows both by what has happened to GW and what he has made for other companies in that time. then there is Rick Priestley, "Rick left Games Workshop in 2009, complaining that the corporate culture had grown too focused on sales and no longer cared about innovation in game design. He is now co-owner of Warlord Games"

ETC...

Sim-Life wrote:

 oni wrote:


Mike Brandt = The new Matt Ward.

I sincerely wish GW had a rules writer as passionate about the game and writing rules for it as Ward. His armies had power level issues but they were fun, dynamic, had imaginative and fluffy special rules and were actually interesting to build different lists for. If GW made the surprise announcement that Ward wrote the new Tyranid codex I'd be back to the game in a heartbeat.

So, you miss George Lucas yet? LOL it is kind of like they warned the Star Wars fans that complained about the prequal movies when Disney bought the franchise (and then destroyed it).

auticus wrote:Dunno without a poll, but the groups I am in that regularly get new 40k players switching over give a lot of other reasons for enjoying the game as well!

We are also getting people jumping ship to other games who are sick of what GW is doing. we are enjoying a surge in battletech players, and warmachine players in a very positive direction.

I agree that there are fewer options for Officers than in previous Editions but I do want to make a couple more points I had in hindsight.
As someone else said earlier, how many Wargear choices in previous Editions were actually a "choice"? I mean Unit put Refractor Fields on both their Officer examples and now they're not optional, it's suddenly a problem? But it's also not just about auto-selects, it's about redundancy. Take, for example, the Legion Astartes Praetor (I'm using a HH example because people seem to like using it as an example of "choice" and "narrative"). Praetors can take Power Weapons, Charnable Sabres, or a Paragon Blade as similar weapons. The Paragon Blade is so far ahead of the other two options in terms of use that I genuinely don't think I've ever seen people arm a Praetor with either, even at narrative events. Same with the Invuln save options. Nobody is taking a Combat Shield or a Refractor Field when an Iron Halo is just objectively the better option. At 150pts my Praetor has a 2+ save (Artificer Armour is auto-included btw), a 4+ Invuln, and a weapon that is +1 Strength, AP 2, and Instant Death on a wound roll of a 6. At best a Praetor is going to be taking something like a Thunder Hammer instead of the Blade or Terminator Armour instead of an Iron Halo, and even then it depends on the pattern of Terminator Armour. There are a lot of options to take but about 60% are just worthless for the unit in question.
Could certain units do with at least a couple more options? Maybe. But how many would be options just for the sake of options?
Also yeah, you can choose not to have Warlord Traits or Relics but it still falls into the illusion of choice thing. You can't escape the illusion.

 Gert wrote:

Spoiler:

 waefre_1 wrote:

Let's dig in a little on this, shall we?

- Heroic Senior Officer Optional upgrade
- Trademark Item (Golden Skull-Cane) Optional wargear purchase
- Bionics Optional wargear purchase
- Plasma Pistol (Master Crafted) Optional wargear purchase with additional optional upgrade
- Storm Bolter Optional wargear purchase
- Refractor Field Optional wargear purchase
- Carapace Armor Optional wargear purchase
- Medallion Crimson Optional wargear purchase

- Senior Officer Possibly optional upgrade - technically, the 3.5 Command Squad only requires an Officer, which could be Junior/Senior/Heroic Senior. I can't recall off the top of my head if there was a requirement to have an HQ Command Squad be Senior/Heroic Senior as opposed to Junior.
- Refractor Field Optional wargear purchase
- Plasma Pistol Optional wargear purchase
- Power Sword Optional wargear purchase
- Frag Grenades Optional wargear purchase

Officers, per the 3.5 'dex, only come with a laspistol and close combat weapon. Their only native special rules are being an Independent Character who can let nearby units use his Ld score for relevant tests (so long as the Officer isn't Pinned/in CC/Falling Back). Anything extra, literally anything at all, is something paid for using points and chosen deliberately by the player. Also, the armory allows for ~100pts of upgrades for Senior Officers and ~50pts of upgrades for any other model that has access, and some of the options are locked into specific units (Force Weapons can only be taken by Sanctioned Psykers, but Power Weapons can be taken by Officers/Storm Trooper Sgts/Priests/Rough Rider Sgts, and a Bolt Pistol can be taken by anyone). Thus, there are some limitations, but generally you are free to take whatever you please (or not, if you'd rather save the points). I'll post screenshots of the 3.5 armory/unit sheet in a spoiler below for reference.

Now, your examples:

- Senior Officer Baked into the unit, cannot be removed; also, only exists to modify VoC slightly and/or do keyword stuff
- Voice of Command Baked into the unit, cannot be removed
- Refractor Field Baked into the unit; cannot be removed
- Chainsword Technically optional wargear purchase, though it is free
- Plasma Pistol Optional wargear purchase
- Order of the Iron Star of Mordian (Relic) Technically optional wargear purchase, though it is free
- Iron Discipline (Warlord Trait) Optional choice, though it is free

- Senior Officer Baked into the unit, cannot be removed; also, only exists to modify VoC slightly and/or do keyword stuff
- Voice of Command Baked into the unit; cannot be removed
- Refractor Field Baked into the unit; cannot be removed
- Power Sword Optional wargear purchase
- Bolt Pistol Optional wargear purchase
- Mamorph Tuskblade (Relic) Technically optional wargear upgrade, though it is free
- Old Grudges (Warlord Trait) Optional choice, though it is free

So a little under half of the things you listed for your choices aren't actually choices - you get them whether you want them or not, and you can't give them up for something else. I think you're right to chide Unit for ignoring Warlord Traits, but I'm not sure those are exactly 1:1 since you get them for free and I don't think you can choose not to take one. Also, outside of Relics/Warlord traits, you don't have any wargear choices that aren't weapons, and a good number of the Relics/Warlord Traits are locked behind <Regiment> keywords (ie. you can't have your Mordian or Armageddon CC wear not!Terminator Armor regardless of what yourdude's headcanon is, only Vostroyans get that). That, I think, is the crux of the matter - a lot of what you choose is either "must take 1 of: ..." or just a weapon. You can't give your Platoon Commander an Honorifica Imperialis to commemorate that time he fought a Daemon Prince to a standstill for that crucial turn you needed to bring up reinforcements - that option does not exist.

I agree that there are fewer options for Officers than in previous Editions but I do want to make a couple more points I had in hindsight.
As someone else said earlier, how many Wargear choices in previous Editions were actually a "choice"? I mean Unit put Refractor Fields on both their Officer examples and now they're not optional, it's suddenly a problem? But it's also not just about auto-selects, it's about redundancy. Take, for example, the Legion Astartes Praetor (I'm using a HH example because people seem to like using it as an example of "choice" and "narrative"). Praetors can take Power Weapons, Charnable Sabres, or a Paragon Blade as similar weapons. The Paragon Blade is so far ahead of the other two options in terms of use that I genuinely don't think I've ever seen people arm a Praetor with either, even at narrative events. Same with the Invuln save options. Nobody is taking a Combat Shield or a Refractor Field when an Iron Halo is just objectively the better option. At 150pts my Praetor has a 2+ save (Artificer Armour is auto-included btw), a 4+ Invuln, and a weapon that is +1 Strength, AP 2, and Instant Death on a wound roll of a 6. At best a Praetor is going to be taking something like a Thunder Hammer instead of the Blade or Terminator Armour instead of an Iron Halo, and even then it depends on the pattern of Terminator Armour. There are a lot of options to take but about 60% are just worthless for the unit in question.
Could certain units do with at least a couple more options? Maybe. But how many would be options just for the sake of options?
Also yeah, you can choose not to have Warlord Traits or Relics but it still falls into the illusion of choice thing. You can't escape the illusion.

 waefre_1 wrote:

Well, I'd say that the illusion is specific to whether the choice is meaningful, and the argument is that the choice at least existed. As Vipoid mentioned upthread, yes, there were dud options that didn't get picked, but you can't fix an option that doesn't exist. Maybe a piece of wargear is pointless now, but that could change in the future. Flat removing it because the rules are bad strikes me as equivalent to demolishing a rarely-used building at a school - yes, that is a way to solve the problem, but you could have found a different use for the building (wargear) instead, and now that it's demolished even that is no longer a possibility. It feels...defeatist, or lazy, I guess. More of a "Let's not even bother trying to make this work", you know?

From the perspective of streamlining (I really don't care if people think 8th did or did not streamline 40k, that was very clearly the intention), why keep options that aren't seeing use or don't offer much in the way of bonuses? I don't see how it's lazy to look at a unit entry and go "hmm nobody is taking half of these, why do we even bother?". It's just common sense. And just as you argue it could be useful in the future, the crux of this specific discussion is based around a Codex from last Edition. We have no idea what changes are going to be made to Guard so I can just as easily use the much-hated "wait and see".

Also, I wouldn't say that Refractor Fields no longer being an optional choice is a problem per se, just that it's emblematic of the loss of flavor that comes with the loss of options. I'm running a Kanak Skull Takers list and the Warchief wouldn't trust such techno-sorcery? Tough gak, here's a Refractor Field! I'm running an armored list where the "Platoon" commander doesn't need (and possibly wouldn't have earned) a Refractor Field since he's just an attachment of mechanized infantry subordinate to the Tank Commander? Feth off, he gets one anyways (and no, I can't give it up so I can buy extra pintle mounts or dozer blades, either)! There's something to be said for allowing people to make suboptimal choices, either as a means of challenging their skill on the tabletop or because they have a specific theme in mind and would rather stick to it even if it hurts them.

They aren't Wargear though, it's a special rule. You can literally just choose to not use it. You're not paying for it or anything. Have you actually used the 8th Ed Guard Codex?

As for the redundancy, that's a fair point. However, a lot of those armory options weren't just "this sword has D2, this sword has AP-1, and this sword wins the game if you have it at deployment" - they offered special rules or exceptions to rules so that you could change how you played. Take the Medallion Crimson - you can be a bit more aggressive with the bearer since they can eat an Instant Death attack and not instantly die to it. The Macharian Cross has a cognate in the Dagger of Tu'Sakh, but you can take more than one Macharian Cross in an army, allowing you some more latitude in the redeployment special rule. Yes, not all of them are necessarily worth the points they cost, but again, you could at least take them and try to make them work.

And that's where Relics come in. All of those things you've described are filled by the Relic options. 9th Ed Codexes also seem to be getting a lot more Relics than their 8th counterparts with each Subfaction getting ine and there also being about 9/10 generic ones. Plus whatever else gets added in any Army Supplements. The only thing you need to worry about is that they might be locked to <Officer> models or <Commisar> models. Hell, Guard also have Tank Aces for Gods sake. There is plenty of customisation in the game.

 Gert wrote:
There is plenty of customisation in the game.

I disagree. Strenuously.

Not saying earlier editions were perfect about it, certainly, but they were BETTER. And the trends GW are following indicate it's getting worse, not better.

Gert wrote:
I agree that there are fewer options for Officers than in previous Editions but I do want to make a couple more points I had in hindsight.
As someone else said earlier, how many Wargear choices in previous Editions were actually a "choice"? I mean Unit put Refractor Fields on both their Officer examples and now they're not optional, it's suddenly a problem? But it's also not just about auto-selects, it's about redundancy. Take, for example, the Legion Astartes Praetor (I'm using a HH example because people seem to like using it as an example of "choice" and "narrative"). Praetors can take Power Weapons, Charnable Sabres, or a Paragon Blade as similar weapons. The Paragon Blade is so far ahead of the other two options in terms of use that I genuinely don't think I've ever seen people arm a Praetor with either, even at narrative events. Same with the Invuln save options. Nobody is taking a Combat Shield or a Refractor Field when an Iron Halo is just objectively the better option. At 150pts my Praetor has a 2+ save (Artificer Armour is auto-included btw), a 4+ Invuln, and a weapon that is +1 Strength, AP 2, and Instant Death on a wound roll of a 6. At best a Praetor is going to be taking something like a Thunder Hammer instead of the Blade or Terminator Armour instead of an Iron Halo, and even then it depends on the pattern of Terminator Armour. There are a lot of options to take but about 60% are just worthless for the unit in question.
Could certain units do with at least a couple more options? Maybe. But how many would be options just for the sake of options?
Also yeah, you can choose not to have Warlord Traits or Relics but it still falls into the illusion of choice thing. You can't escape the illusion.

I think you're pulling a "whatabout" here. Option redundancy sucks and should be streamlined, I agree, but there are meaningful choices in my illustration that each do something unique and different. And having ~6 different warlord trait choices (about 2 of which are useful) and about 7 different relic choices (once you've chosen your subfaction and with only about 3 or 4 useful ones) doesn't leave much diversity. One Praetorian army will look very similar to one Armageddon army in terms of the "your dudes" effect, compared to 3.5ed, and officer wargear is only the tip of the iceberg.

Gert wrote:

 waefre_1 wrote:

Well, I'd say that the illusion is specific to whether the choice is meaningful, and the argument is that the choice at least existed. As Vipoid mentioned upthread, yes, there were dud options that didn't get picked, but you can't fix an option that doesn't exist. Maybe a piece of wargear is pointless now, but that could change in the future. Flat removing it because the rules are bad strikes me as equivalent to demolishing a rarely-used building at a school - yes, that is a way to solve the problem, but you could have found a different use for the building (wargear) instead, and now that it's demolished even that is no longer a possibility. It feels...defeatist, or lazy, I guess. More of a "Let's not even bother trying to make this work", you know?

From the perspective of streamlining (I really don't care if people think 8th did or did not streamline 40k, that was very clearly the intention), why keep options that aren't seeing use or don't offer much in the way of bonuses? I don't see how it's lazy to look at a unit entry and go "hmm nobody is taking half of these, why do we even bother?". It's just common sense. And just as you argue it could be useful in the future, the crux of this specific discussion is based around a Codex from last Edition. We have no idea what changes are going to be made to Guard so I can just as easily use the much-hated "wait and see".

Also, I wouldn't say that Refractor Fields no longer being an optional choice is a problem per se, just that it's emblematic of the loss of flavor that comes with the loss of options. I'm running a Kanak Skull Takers list and the Warchief wouldn't trust such techno-sorcery? Tough gak, here's a Refractor Field! I'm running an armored list where the "Platoon" commander doesn't need (and possibly wouldn't have earned) a Refractor Field since he's just an attachment of mechanized infantry subordinate to the Tank Commander? Feth off, he gets one anyways (and no, I can't give it up so I can buy extra pintle mounts or dozer blades, either)! There's something to be said for allowing people to make suboptimal choices, either as a means of challenging their skill on the tabletop or because they have a specific theme in mind and would rather stick to it even if it hurts them.

They aren't Wargear though, it's a special rule. You can literally just choose to not use it. You're not paying for it or anything. Have you actually used the 8th Ed Guard Codex?

Presumably, it isn't Free though. If you wanted to use those 5-15 points elsewhere (say, to buy your troopers Warrior Weapons as they're Kanak Skull Takers - not that you can do THAT in 9th either, but not's let get facts get in the way of arguments). If you're literally saying a 5+ invulnerable save contributes 0pts to the officer's points cost, I hope you don't mind it being on all my men there either - obviously, it didn't change the officer's base cost so why would it change anyone's? The officers are more valuable than the men.

It's disingenuous to suggest it's "free" just because the cost is baked into the character.

Gert wrote:

As for the redundancy, that's a fair point. However, a lot of those armory options weren't just "this sword has D2, this sword has AP-1, and this sword wins the game if you have it at deployment" - they offered special rules or exceptions to rules so that you could change how you played. Take the Medallion Crimson - you can be a bit more aggressive with the bearer since they can eat an Instant Death attack and not instantly die to it. The Macharian Cross has a cognate in the Dagger of Tu'Sakh, but you can take more than one Macharian Cross in an army, allowing you some more latitude in the redeployment special rule. Yes, not all of them are necessarily worth the points they cost, but again, you could at least take them and try to make them work.

And that's where Relics come in. All of those things you've described are filled by the Relic options. 9th Ed Codexes also seem to be getting a lot more Relics than their 8th counterparts with each Subfaction getting ine and there also being about 9/10 generic ones. Plus whatever else gets added in any Army Supplements. The only thing you need to worry about is that they might be locked to <Officer> models or <Commisar> models. Hell, Guard also have Tank Aces for Gods sake. There is plenty of customisation in the game.

The Guard codex has 24 relics between it and its supplements (Pariah and Cadia). It still doesn't let anyone do "your dudes" as they're locked behind some weird restrictions. Want a Techpriest Enginseer with a data-reader that regenerates Command Points (Kurov's Aquila)? Too bad - turns out your regiment's Tech-Priests aren't allowed to be cool. Want a Primaris Psyker with Manmorph Tuskblade, representing a weapon he took from his homeworld before he left for his sanctioning? Too bad, that's never happened to any psyker in the galaxy, idiot. The problem with relics is that they aren't really Your Dudes.

Plus, there's not that many choices with the relics. There's 24 "choices" but, there's like, 6 that anyone can remember off the top of their head.

Lastly, the Guard had Tank Aces in 3.5 as well, replete with something like 24 doctrine choices (that could do everything from seeing a tank issued with anti-tank shells to having its hull blessed by the Machine God so alien weapons couldn't affect it). Nowadays? A Russ can have 6 options, one of which gives it a 2+ save to replace its existing 2+ save. Oh, and you can only have two, so I hope you regiment isn't made up of mostly veteran tankers or anything. Oh, and one of them requires your Warlord Trait slot, so I hope you weren't differentiating between commanders with that 1 Warlord Trait you get.

 Gert wrote:
From the perspective of streamlining (I really don't care if people think 8th did or did not streamline 40k, that was very clearly the intention), why keep options that aren't seeing use or don't offer much in the way of bonuses? I don't see how it's lazy to look at a unit entry and go "hmm nobody is taking half of these, why do we even bother?". It's just common sense. And just as you argue it could be useful in the future, the crux of this specific discussion is based around a Codex from last Edition. We have no idea what changes are going to be made to Guard so I can just as easily use the much-hated "wait and see".

If GW cared enough to come up with the options, then they should care enough to try to make them work. If they don't care enough to try to make them work, why bother including them to begin with? I work in IT, I write scripts to automate tasks and solve problems. If I write a script and it fails, and I immediately throw my hands up and say "Welp, script's broke, can't make it work" and give up, am I not being lazy?

They aren't Wargear though, it's a special rule. You can literally just choose to not use it. You're not paying for it or anything. Have you actually used the 8th Ed Guard Codex?

Yes? They may not have an explicit cost in the 'dex somewhere, that doesn't mean they're free. Make the Refractor Field a piece of wargear again and the Company Commander becomes $WARGEAR_COST points cheaper. That's what they did to the Leman Russ - take out the main gun and make the base chassis that much cheaper.

And that's where Relics come in. All of those things you've described are filled by the Relic options. 9th Ed Codexes also seem to be getting a lot more Relics than their 8th counterparts with each Subfaction getting ine and there also being about 9/10 generic ones. Plus whatever else gets added in any Army Supplements. The only thing you need to worry about is that they might be locked to <Officer> models or <Commisar> models. Hell, Guard also have Tank Aces for Gods sake. There is plenty of customisation in the game.

First off, no, they aren't all filled by Relic options. Second, certain Relics are also locked into certain <Regiment>s, and with the general trend away from multiple detachments/souping, that means that you're never playing with the full set of options (even if you do go with multiple detachments, you can't give your Warlord Pietrov's Mk45 AND a Mamorph Tuskblade since they can't be both <Catachan> and <Valhallan> at the same time). There's a distinct difference between "only Priests can carry a holy relic" and "only Priests from a specific homeworld can wield a holy relic".

 kodos wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Telling "fluff hammer" players to feth off and find another game (or edition) to play is peak DakkaDakka.

Maybe we should do it, lets all the fluff-hammer players move to another game and see how long it takes for the rest to follow

GW could literally write, "Warhammer is for everyone... except fluffplayers. You will not be missed." And the overwhelming majority would stick around.

To be fair the same would go if they wrote that about competitive players too.

Toofast wrote:
If you aren't playing in tournaments, why does the tournament meta affect your garagehammer games?

For many people the way they play 40k is via pick-up games at gaming stores. These, by their very definition, are designed to be done in an ad-hoc/on the fly style method, meaning as little time spend organising them as possible. For that reason, there is a level of standardisation that is inherent in pick-up games in order for them to run smoothly and quickly. Tournament rules, meta, and changes filter through to the general populace and become 'standard' for pick-up games. It's why so many thought 'Rule of 3' was a general 40k rule in 8th when it wasn't, and why the recent changes to Patrols, despite "only" being for Nachmund Tournament missions, will filter through to regular 40k pick-up games.

That's why tournaments matter to more casual gamers, because more casual gamers are playing pick-up games more than anything else, especially in the US.

How many times must this be explained?

 Daedalus81 wrote:
As noted above - I guarantee you those old options weren't all good picks. Huskblade is either incredible or trash depending on when Eternal Warrior came out and what people used.

Put simply: Who cares if its good or not? Why is that the determining factor whether something gets to exist?

Unit1126PLL wrote:It still doesn't let anyone do "your dudes" as they're locked behind some weird restrictions. Want a Techpriest Enginseer with a data-reader that regenerates Command Points (Kurov's Aquila)? Too bad - turns out your regiment's Tech-Priests aren't allowed to be cool. Want a Primaris Psyker with Manmorph Tuskblade, representing a weapon he took from his homeworld before he left for his sanctioning? Too bad, that's never happened to any psyker in the galaxy, idiot. The problem with relics is that they aren't really Your Dudes.

Sure, but I've also never been able to stick a bolter in the hands of a regular guardsman who picked one up in combat, or a Thunder Hammer and Jump Pack Senior Officer.

So much for "My Dudes"?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:It still doesn't let anyone do "your dudes" as they're locked behind some weird restrictions. Want a Techpriest Enginseer with a data-reader that regenerates Command Points (Kurov's Aquila)? Too bad - turns out your regiment's Tech-Priests aren't allowed to be cool. Want a Primaris Psyker with Manmorph Tuskblade, representing a weapon he took from his homeworld before he left for his sanctioning? Too bad, that's never happened to any psyker in the galaxy, idiot. The problem with relics is that they aren't really Your Dudes.

Sure, but I've also never been able to stick a bolter in the hands of a regular guardsman who picked one up in combat, or a Thunder Hammer and Jump Pack Senior Officer.

So much for "My Dudes"?

If you defined "your dudes" as "that one guardsman who picked up a bolter" or "a senior officer who has a jump pack and thunder hammer" then yes, so much for your dudes.

I'm not asking for any fluff changes like you are though (re: thunder hammers and jump packs). I'm asking for GW to bring back the in-line-with-the-fluff customization that they used to have, that they've now lost in favor of ... well, considerably unfluffy alternatives.

I mean everyone ignored my "Armageddon Steel Legion in 3.5 vs Armageddon Steel Legion now" example, but it's apt.

In one book, they're a force who:
- must take chimeras
- can take ratlings, unlike other regiments who cannot
- can take conscripts, who are also regiment restricted
- Xeno-Fighters Orks - i.e., are good at fighting orks
- can take storm troopers, which are ALSO regiment restricted

nowadays:
- vehicles ignore AP -1 (???)
- rapid fire at 18" (as we know, mechanized regiments absolutely love staying at medium range and firing on fully-automatic with nary a transport in sight).

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Toofast wrote:
If you aren't playing in tournaments, why does the tournament meta affect your garagehammer games?

For many people the way they play 40k is via pick-up games at gaming stores. These, by their very definition, are designed to be done in an ad-hoc/on the fly style method, meaning as little time spend organising them as possible. For that reason, there is a level of standardisation that is inherent in pick-up games in order for them to run smoothly and quickly. Tournament rules, meta, and changes filter through to the general populace and become 'standard' for pick-up games. It's why so many thought 'Rule of 3' was a general 40k rule in 8th when it wasn't, and why the recent changes to Patrols, despite "only" being for Nachmund Tournament missions, will filter through to regular 40k pick-up games.

That's why tournaments matter to more casual gamers, because more casual gamers are playing pick-up games more than anything else, especially in the US.

How many times must this be explained?

 Daedalus81 wrote:
As noted above - I guarantee you those old options weren't all good picks. Huskblade is either incredible or trash depending on when Eternal Warrior came out and what people used.

Put simply: Who cares if its good or not? Why is that the determining factor whether something gets to exist?

Did not know that the Patrol change rumour was confirmed?

My question is why a "casual" player who plays pickup games on Saturday with strangers would not want GW to attempt to balance off what happens in the tourney scene? Doesn't mean that the designers succeed, but the intent is good. Additionally, bleed over of lists/tactics from tournaments is still not a reason for a "casual" to throw shade at tourneys. Still, a casual being mad at the tournament scene doesn't really do anything at the end of the day.

I do feel a little bad for the lonely Narrative gamer who has a specific battle he wants to recreate that cannot find a like-minded opponent, but that's life sometimes. At least the GT 2022 system provides a common framework for players to have a game. A pre-game chat about expectations is still helpful, but you can get to dice throwing without too much negotiation.

I hear about "better" games out there, but I can only seem to find them in the 50% discount bin at the FLGS and not much actual game play. Maybe my area is the exception, but our 40K tourneys sell out on-line in a couple of hours while other systems (Bolt Action, Flames of War) might be lucky to get to half-capacity. Warmachine is dead. Infinity as well. That could change, but there it is.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I feel like part of the point of my OP was missed-40k is badly balanced, by pretty much any reasonable definition of balance.

But, while I'd like it to be otherwise, I'm fully capable of realizing that it will probably never be balanced.

However, what I'd like if that's the case is customization-Dark Eldar, again, are strong. But there's very minimal customization options.
Necrons-they're weak. And they have minimal customization.

I think part of the issue is that your definition of customization is specifically "Equipment customization at the unit level."

By that definition, yes, 9th has nowhere near the customization of previous editions. I think 9th SHOULD be stronger here than it is- I'm no more a fan of current trends in equipment lists at the unit level than most people. I always enjoyed the load out stage of list building and the modelling opportunities it provided.

But I think that in terms of Army construction, there are more options than there have ever been. I really had to think about my army from top down in order to lock down "my dudes"

Specifically, I had to decide what my army represented:

Was it an alliance between equally powerful cults, kabals and covens?
Was it a powerful cult with kabal/ coven allies?
A powerful coven with cult and kabal allies?
A powerful kabal with cult and coven allies?

Is it primarily a realspace raiding force, or will you mostly be functioning as a raiding force? (Note, I wish the names for these two types of forces were more distinct)

The process I used was to start wit a cult patrol, a coven patrol and a kabal patrol. This because I'm not just building an army; I'm building a raoster from which many different armies can be built based on my needs for a particular game. Choosing to start with this as a baseline configuration will maximize the options available. I build each to 25 PL; this is only the baseline army, so I don't need to flesh out points yet; 25 PL is roughly 500 pts. At this point, what I've got is not one 1500 point army... I mean, yes, I have that- two actually, because I can build it as a realspace raid or a raiding force, and that is a very significant and "my dudes" level decision that has never before existed.

But in addition to those two distinct 1500 point armies, you've also got three distinct 1000 point armies (Kabal+ Cult, Kabal + Coven, Cult + Coven). And finally, of course, you also have 3 very distinct 500 point armies. And you should be keeping all of those build options in mind as you build- thinking only about the eventual 2k build is a really bad way to get the most out of a DE army. If each of your patrols is treated as an army unto itself, on the other hand, you're unlocking a lot of potential. Your first decision is to pick subfactions for each of your three patrols, and remember, it's best to think about this in terms of your specific needs- your choices on this might be different if you've chosen to depict a strong Kabal with Cult and Coven allies vs. A strong Cult with mostly Coven allies.

Other things to think about: when I build armies these days, I start each unit by thinking about the Kill Team potential within it. For DE, your fire teams are 5 kabalite or 5 wych models; you get one leader, one gunner and one heavy gunner in a kabal fireteam, or one leader and up to 3 fighters- each armed with a different wych weapon. And this is where I'm with you- I loved it when I used to be able to take 3 Shard net + Impalers instead of one of each- really miss that. But what I tend to do is optimize these models for Kill Team. and I put some thought into their basing because I want them to blend with the other five models in the unit, but I also want them to be identifiable as a team within a team. Now I have the five left over models to think about; If it was a fire team, how would I make it interesting? This is where I tend to put modeling flourishes- simple conversions like swapping in a head that is only available in a rider's kit or any other suitable Aedlari head from a normal kit. Again, their basing needs to be both consistent with and distinct from the basing of the other fire team. In particular, I want to model one of these five to be recognizable as leader, even though I can't actually equip it with a leader's load out.

When I'm figuring out my HQ, it helps to know the character's role in the larger army. So if I've decided that the Kabal is going to be assuming the leadership role at the Strikeforce level, I might build it as befitting a Master Archon, a Master Succubus or a Master Haemonculous. What I usually do is build it as I would build a Master- so again, distinctive basing, and simple subtle conversion work- usually limited to part swapping from other suitable kits. I think about what their warlord traits would be, even if I don't use them as warlords in every game. There's a lot that goes on with this- first consideration is usually synergy with the Subfaction trait, synergy with load out choice or equipped relic and then suitability to the lore, I tend to see the core units is being exemplars of the subfaction they represent, so in I often pick bespoke subfaction traits for these units when I can. Then I'll think about which relic I would equip the model with based on its various synergies, it's modelling potential, it's consistency with the lore and the story of "My dudes". With both the WL trait and relic known, I can determine how that informs the pose or loadout for modelling purposes.

So now I need to think about the next patrol- the one that will get me to 2k. What you want to do here to maximize play potential is pick which of your three sub factions will be in the leadership role of the assembled army, and build a second patrol for the faction. This is also where I tend to put any mercenaries. With these units, I'm putting in a little less thought- they don't need to be optimized as a standalone force, and they should be designed to synergize with the existing patrol that matches their subfaction. You want to think of how they would fit as both a second patrol and as a combined brigade. This HQ model is less likely to be used as a master model, so you don't need to think as deeply about customization or modelling.

So now that I've got my 100 PL army, I'll run a points count to see how close I am to that 2k mark. I can usually swap around a bit of load out to fine tune it to 2k. At this point, play it's time to play. This is where you figure out if you like realspace raid or raiding force. This is where you start to work toward optimization. I tend to do this by adding to existing detachments rather than building others- 4 is the maximum detachment size even in Onslaught games. At this point, I'm seeking primarily to fine tune competitiveness- all the other concerns about aesthetic and play style preferences have already been considered. You'll be looking for any unit substitutions you can make, as well as optimizing load out as much as you can.

Now with this army, what I recommend is that you try to get smaller games in addition to your regular 2k matched game nights. If you've got someone in your life- a sibling, spouse, room mate or kid, or even just a close friend who doesn't currently play warhammer, you should teach this person to play. Let them pick one of your patrols while you pick from what's left over. Play at home on a small board. Use PL, stick to simple missions- maybe even using the open war deck for the first few games; even though all of these patrols are technically battleforged, your friend is still learning, so secondaries and strats should take a back seat- since you're already using the open war deck anyway, just waive your battleforged bonusses. Technically, this means no CP (unless generated by your army) and therefore no strategems. What I do is start with no CPS, but still get 1 per turn and use only the strats from the BRB. I'd play enough of these to let each player play each patrol once.

In these games, you're learning about how to maximize auras through positioning, how to maximize the impact of terrain, how to make the most out of warlord trait and relic abilities, and how all of these factors interact with army-wide and subfaction bonusses. This is a really good way to learn these skills, as they often get lost in the noise of bespoke strats. You and your friend may like these small scale games, and you might decide to add them to your gaming schedule. Maybe not. Maybe you have another person with whom you may want to try the same approach. Maybe not.

You're still regularly playing your preferred game in your regular venue according to your regular schedule, still tweaking that army for event participation or just to do better in pick up games. The more you tweak, the more you may consider altering the structure of your army. In acquiring new units, you'll unlock the potential for battle beyond 2k as well, though depending upon the choices you've made along the way, there might not be much to add.

Back on the small scale, if your friend is into it, you might be thinking about crusade. I have to tell you, when you can crusade with a housemate, it really is a kind of magic- especially with DE because their fluff is so full of internal army strife and struggle for power. The bespoke Crusade rules are basically a DE version of Necromunda- it is seriously everything that old Gangs of Commorragh minigame was supposed to be and so much more.

It's great too, because you earn all this extra customization in the form of requisitions and battle honours by fighting against each other within Commoragh, but then when you get an opportunity for a bigger game, you can combing armies into a raiding force or a realspace raid and team play.

And just a few words about Crusade: a lot of people have a lot of legitimate and compelling objections or barriers to playing crusade, and I get that. I suggest it as a remedy for feeling like you've lost customization options. Not just choosing your upgrades and customization options, but actually earning them provides so much more satisfaction, and there's so much more to choose from than mere load out options. And the modelling potential! It's of the charts.

At a base level, by a box of skulls. Add a skull to the base of every unit when it levels; pick the skull that corresponds to the enemy you defeated to earn the battlehonour when and where possible. So even with this simple visual code, you're distinguishing units from one another- the whole army could be hroic, but the base would still tell a story by showing which armies the model has encountered. I take this a lot further with some models. For example both my Hospitaller and my Dialogus have magnetized back packs because at the lower levels they are still learning, so they just have standard back packs, getting their full back pack at Battlehardened. I'm doing the same with the Dialogus lectern and I'm going to see if it's possible to do it with the Hospitaller's casualty- that's the upgrade for Legendary. My GSC Patriarch is a Stealer with a blinged out base at Blooded, a conventional plastic patriarch at Battlehardend a Classic metal running partiarch at Heroic and a Classic Metal Throned Patriarch at Legendary.

Anyway, I agree with you that equipment options have certainly taken a hit in 9th. That bums me out, and I'm not sure it was necessary for GW to do it. However, despite the loss of this particular form of customization, I feel like we've never had some many opportunities for other types of customization. This is even more true of DE specifically, and of Crusade games of any army... but even disregarding army choice and play mode, I still feel like there are still a lot of non equipment options that offer a combination of interesting rules, modelling opportunities, lore expression and personal narrative.

I hear about "better" games out there, but I can only seem to find them in the 50% discount bin at the FLGS and not much actual game play. Maybe my area is the exception, but our 40K tourneys sell out on-line in a couple of hours while other systems (Bolt Action, Flames of War) might be lucky to get to half-capacity. Warmachine is dead. Infinity as well. That could change, but there it is.

The main draw of 40k is not that it is an awesome game, its that you can find a game literally in any location on the globe for the most part.

It is a nuclear reactor that feeds itself. People look at games and most tabletop games do cost a lot of money to get into, so the 40k choice is a no-brainer for most people because there is no need to have to drum up a community for it.

99 times out of 100 wherever you are the community already exists. That part is HUGE when it comes to deciding which game to play.

Sooo just gonna throw this out there, you know spaghetti against the wall see what sticks.

What it GW introduced into narrative game play, or a option to have/take a highly customizable "your dude" depending on the army you take that would let you equip him is any way you wanted including buying special rules with a limit on those special rules.
Like let's say If you wanted to equip your dude with 2 plasma pistols and buy gun slinger for him. And you only can do this for like 1 cp if it's a 5 would or less model
2cp 6-12 point model
3cp for 13+ wound models.

Not married to this idea, just throwing it out there.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Sooo just gonna throw this out there, you know spaghetti against the wall see what sticks.

What it GW introduced into narrative game play, or a option to have/take a highly customizable "your dude" depending on the army you take that would let you equip him is any way you wanted including buying special rules with a limit on those special rules.
Like let's say If you wanted to equip your dude with 2 plasma pistols and buy gun slinger for him. And you only can do this for like 1 cp if it's a 5 would or less model
2cp 6-12 point model
3cp for 13+ wound models.

Not married to this idea, just throwing it out there.

The narrative players would take a skeptical sideways look, try it out in a few games, and decide that it was either too broken to use or kind of pointless. The competitive players would lose their gak and this would generate weeks of "look at this broken combo that happens if you're trying to play casually!" headlines/videos. The average casual player wouldn't bother because it'd either be a lot of extra modeling work, or it'd be $50 for one guy. Jokes about common proxies for various options would proliferate. This would get added to each army only as the 10e Codexes come out, so players wouldn't have equal access to it and it'd be another "wait until your new book comes out or just buy a different army!" point of contention. The sculpting team would rise up in revolt when asked to make customizable character sprues for a bunch of different armies, so the only ones that'd actually have models would be thirteen different Primaris Lieutenant sprues. Take your pick.

Those of us complaining about the loss of customizable stuff are very much in the minority and most of us have already quit 9th, it's not the kind of thing GW perceives much demand for in the current competitive-focused era.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Sooo just gonna throw this out there, you know spaghetti against the wall see what sticks.

What it GW introduced into narrative game play, or a option to have/take a highly customizable "your dude" depending on the army you take that would let you equip him is any way you wanted including buying special rules with a limit on those special rules.
Like let's say If you wanted to equip your dude with 2 plasma pistols and buy gun slinger for him. And you only can do this for like 1 cp if it's a 5 would or less model
2cp 6-12 point model
3cp for 13+ wound models.

Not married to this idea, just throwing it out there.

Well, if my army were just one dude, there might be some merit to that. I (and I assume Unit as well) focused on the wargear for officers since it provides one of the more stark examples of the loss of options, but the issue runs across the entire army (see: Unit's example of 3.5e Armageddon vs 8e Armageddon). Customizing one dude does not fix the other hundred or so dudes we'd have in the army.

the main thing with "your dudes" isn't the single dude (though that can be used as an exemplar) but rather the army.

In 3.5 my tank company might have:
Rare Troops: Vanquisher
Side Armor Skirts
Machine-God's Blessing
Reinforced Ceramite Armor
Anti-Tank Rounds

representing a well-equipped armored regiment fresh from the factory with the best tanks my wealthy world can buy.

Your tank company might have:
Crush and Grind
Evasive Driving
Ace Gunners
Ace Drivers
Ace Sponson Gunners

To represent a tank company with veteran crews, hard-bitten after years of war and unafraid of closing with enemy infantry and crushing them undertread. Their rare tanks have been lost, their armored plates (once the pinnacle of Imperial production methods) patched and roughly handled, and they've long since expended their precious augur antitank rounds.

Meanwhile, in 9th, I might have:
Valhallan doctrine
two tank aces (-1 damage and like Slow and Purposeful or something)

you might have:
Catachan doctrine
Old Grudges
Weapon Ace

And that's it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It's not just weapon options. There are other wargear options as well. Consider the following two IG HQ characters custom made from 3.5:

"Colonel Ivan Belinski, Commander of the 53rd Chortaxi Vanguard"
- Heroic Senior Officer
- Trademark Item (Golden Skull-Cane)
- Bionics
- Plasma Pistol (Master Crafted)
- Storm Bolter
- Refractor Field
- Carapace Armor
- Medallion Crimson

"Captain Tomas van Lourd of the 267th Armageddon Steel Legion"
- Senior Officer
- Refractor Field
- Plasma Pistol
- Power Sword
- Frag Grenades

Ivan holds the line rather than preferring to enter close-combat himself, positioned in the center of his defensive works likely with a company - or regimental - standard. He is a hero, a decorated veteran whose wounds have been patched by bionic replacement. His staff is a symbol to his men, held high and waving as he bellows orders to those around him.

Tomas, meanwhile, is a competent but unexceptional company captain, finding most of his time issuing orders from within his Armageddon Chimera. He doesn't wear bulky carapace armor, and carries close-combat equipment to see a mechanized assault home. He only disembarks when necessary however, and dispenses with the typical flair and flash of some of his more heroic and inspiring peers.

Consider them in 9th:
Colonel Ivan:
Company Commander with Bolter, Plasma Pistol

Captain Thomas: company Commander with power sword, plasma pistol

Woo, so distinct and different!

I really love that level of customization back then, really makes your dudes, your dudes. Behind the scenes I often wonder what caused GW to move away from that level of customization to being more cookie cutter. Trimming down weapons loadouts based on whats in the box is easy to understand even if I disagree with it, but I've always wondered why they got rid of the upgrades like Heroic Senior Officer or Trademark item. Sure there is always balance issues when you stack multiple things on one unit but I wonder what else drove that.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Telling "fluff hammer" players to feth off and find another game (or edition) to play is peak DakkaDakka.

You need some help with your reading comprehension. I never told them to find another game. I asked why the tournament meta matters to them if they aren't playing in tournaments. If competitive players are a tiny, vocal minority, surely it should be easy to find a local group that also doesn't care about tournaments. You can then play 9th crusades using power level, 5th edition with houserules, whatever you want. I don't complain about the rules for the local adult baseball league because I don't play in so they're irrelevant to me. Similar concept can be applied here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Toofast wrote:
If you aren't playing in tournaments, why does the tournament meta affect your garagehammer games?

For many people the way they play 40k is via pick-up games at gaming stores. These, by their very definition, are designed to be done in an ad-hoc/on the fly style method, meaning as little time spend organising them as possible. For that reason, there is a level of standardisation that is inherent in pick-up games in order for them to run smoothly and quickly. Tournament rules, meta, and changes filter through to the general populace and become 'standard' for pick-up games. It's why so many thought 'Rule of 3' was a general 40k rule in 8th when it wasn't, and why the recent changes to Patrols, despite "only" being for Nachmund Tournament missions, will filter through to regular 40k pick-up games.

That's why tournaments matter to more casual gamers, because more casual gamers are playing pick-up games more than anything else, especially in the US.

How many times must this be explained?

 Daedalus81 wrote:
As noted above - I guarantee you those old options weren't all good picks. Huskblade is either incredible or trash depending on when Eternal Warrior came out and what people used.

Put simply: Who cares if its good or not? Why is that the determining factor whether something gets to exist?

The same people claim that competitive players are a teeny tiny minority and the vast majority are super casual and don't care about building a strong list or even playing evenly matched games with points. You can't have it both ways. IMO most people in the United States are more competitive and that's why pickup games use tournament missions, 2k points, 44x60 tables, etc. They also make up most of the revenue because they're constantly buying new units or even whole armies based on what's powerful in the meta at the time, while a more casual player might pick up 1 new kit a month because he wants to paint it. People playing PL crusades and not caring about winning games are the tiny minority, they just make up the majority of forum users on this and similar forums because the younger/more competitive players are on reddit and in discord groups.

He very obviously isn't asking to have it both ways. He's explaining the reality to you- that it does affect pick-up games in stores.

Supposed minorities and majorities don't matter- they're effectively a straw man.

Voss wrote:
He very obviously isn't asking to have it both ways. He's explaining the reality to you- that it does affect pick-up games in stores.

Supposed minorities and majorities don't matter- they're effectively a straw man.

"Why are they designing this game for a tiny minority of the playerbase?" is a question you see quite often on this forum and others. If pickup games are mostly played to tournament standard, it's because that's the way most people want to play. Otherwise the pickup game standard would be power level and crusade missions.

Toofast wrote:

Voss wrote:
He very obviously isn't asking to have it both ways. He's explaining the reality to you- that it does affect pick-up games in stores.

Supposed minorities and majorities don't matter- they're effectively a straw man.

"Why are they designing this game for a tiny minority of the playerbase?" is a question you see quite often on this forum and others. If pickup games are mostly played to tournament standard, it's because that's the way most people want to play. Otherwise the pickup game standard would be power level and crusade missions.

The problem is the bell has already been rung with regards to tourneyhammer being the only best way to play. It purposefully makes it the default.

The real, not strawmanned claim is that a game should feasibly be able to support both narrative and competitive play within the same system, if it is well balanced and the background/setting/lore is well-abstracted (instead of the utterly unhelpful "Three Ways To Play (Because One Way To Play Is Hard To Design And We're Lazy And/Or Bad At It.)."

There are myriad examples of games (even some from GW) that:

1) are balanced better than 40k (not perfect, but better)
2) match whatever setting they're trying to portray in both: 2a) army building and 2b) army employment on the tabletop (better than 40k at any rate)
3) are easier to remember the rules for than 40k (by virtue of being intuitive; if the interaction works like you'd expect it to in reality, then all you have to remember is it works like you'd expect it to)
4) require less "planning in advance" than 40k whether one is playing to tell a story with their dudes or practice for a tournament - the game is well balanced enough that the two types of armies can co-exist on the tabletop without it being a wipe.

The whole "Narrative, Matched, and Open" thing is just a cop-out so GW doesn't have to balance a system while also sticking to a narrative. Some may say "it's liberating" because the lore no longer has to be balanced too, but that's just lazy.

"Oh yeah, in our lore Space Marines win all the time. They just don't on the tabletop because hey, who said the game had to match the lore anyways amirite?"

 The Red Hobbit wrote:

I really love that level of customization back then, really makes your dudes, your dudes. Behind the scenes I often wonder what caused GW to move away from that level of customization to being more cookie cutter. Trimming down weapons loadouts based on whats in the box is easy to understand even if I disagree with it, but I've always wondered why they got rid of the upgrades like Heroic Senior Officer or Trademark item. Sure there is always balance issues when you stack multiple things on one unit but I wonder what else drove that.

Cruddace is lazy and/or bad at his job. Probably both. Prior to 8th his codexes in 40k were generally bland to play and lacked options or any sense of passion. Now he's been put in charge of the whole ship and its spread to the rest of the game and it shows.

Keen observation Sim.
Exalted.

If Cruddace were a book he'd be two books, if he were a spice he'd be flour. In the world of 31 flavours he's the bucket you wash the ice cream scoop in.

And he messed up Tyranids.

Twice.

The second time after he was specifically called out for and acknowledged that he messed up the first time.

I will never not be bitter that he removed EIGHTEEN options from the carnifex.

Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:It still doesn't let anyone do "your dudes" as they're locked behind some weird restrictions. Want a Techpriest Enginseer with a data-reader that regenerates Command Points (Kurov's Aquila)? Too bad - turns out your regiment's Tech-Priests aren't allowed to be cool. Want a Primaris Psyker with Manmorph Tuskblade, representing a weapon he took from his homeworld before he left for his sanctioning? Too bad, that's never happened to any psyker in the galaxy, idiot. The problem with relics is that they aren't really Your Dudes.

Sure, but I've also never been able to stick a bolter in the hands of a regular guardsman who picked one up in combat, or a Thunder Hammer and Jump Pack Senior Officer.

So much for "My Dudes"?

If you defined "your dudes" as "that one guardsman who picked up a bolter" or "a senior officer who has a jump pack and thunder hammer" then yes, so much for your dudes.

Nah, I'm defining my dudes as Streb Garnsky, a guardsman weary of war, scrambling through the piles of the dead and wounded for something, anything, better than the lasgun that they've seen can't do anything meaningful towards the utterly terrifying alien abominations that have wiped out platoon after platoon, and grabbed a hold of their late Sergeant's bolter.

I'm defining my dudes as Captain Vaness Kalliga, a hot-headed senior officer inspired by the myths of avenging angels she grew up with, and leads her platoon of drop troops from the front with a two-handed hammer, and using her modified drop pack as a way to tactically reposition herself in the heat of combat. Despite the concern for her safety from the troops under her command, she always seems to pull through, against all odds.

Just so we're being fair with your very flavourful descriptions.

I'm not asking for any fluff changes like you are though (re: thunder hammers and jump packs).

Jump packs aren't actually a fluff change, considering Guardsmen used to have them, and the Tanith are shown to use them in their assault on Phantine. And why can't guardsmen carry hammers? Seems like a pretty arbitrary restriction.

I'm asking for GW to bring back the in-line-with-the-fluff customization that they used to have, that they've now lost in favor of ... well, considerably unfluffy alternatives.

You can have your fluff customisation. It's called modelling and fiction. If you want to represent your forces being worn down and weary, you can model them like that. If I want my Space Marines carrying power katanas, I'll model them like it. I don't need bespoke rules for it.

My stance on this point has changed over the years, but I think I prefer the idea of more basic rules, and leave the flavour of minor aspects to the players to build for themselves.

Your armoured column specialises in full frontal assaults? Then deploy them in a frontal formation on the tabletop. Your Space Marines specialise in using bikes? Then take bikes. Your Tyranids prefer the use of Carnifex battering rams? Then take lots of Carnifexes.

This, of course, comes with the understanding that I'd want all options to be viable on tabletop.

I mean everyone ignored my "Armageddon Steel Legion in 3.5 vs Armageddon Steel Legion now" example, but it's apt.

In one book, they're a force who:
- must take chimeras
- can take ratlings, unlike other regiments who cannot
- can take conscripts, who are also regiment restricted
- Xeno-Fighters Orks - i.e., are good at fighting orks
- can take storm troopers, which are ALSO regiment restricted

nowadays:
- vehicles ignore AP -1 (???)
- rapid fire at 18" (as we know, mechanized regiments absolutely love staying at medium range and firing on fully-automatic with nary a transport in sight).

Amazing. So take Chimeras, take Ratlings, take Conscripts, and take Storm Troopers.

If you want a fluffy army, build one. You don't need GW to force you into it.

 Grimtuff wrote:
If Cruddace were a book he'd be two books, if he were a spice he'd be flour. In the world of 31 flavours he's the bucket you wash the ice cream scoop in.

 Sim-Life wrote:
I will never not be bitter that he removed EIGHTEEN options from the carnifex.

Wait, 18, really? I knew his Tyranid books were bad but I'd forgotten they were that bad.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:It still doesn't let anyone do "your dudes" as they're locked behind some weird restrictions. Want a Techpriest Enginseer with a data-reader that regenerates Command Points (Kurov's Aquila)? Too bad - turns out your regiment's Tech-Priests aren't allowed to be cool. Want a Primaris Psyker with Manmorph Tuskblade, representing a weapon he took from his homeworld before he left for his sanctioning? Too bad, that's never happened to any psyker in the galaxy, idiot. The problem with relics is that they aren't really Your Dudes.

Sure, but I've also never been able to stick a bolter in the hands of a regular guardsman who picked one up in combat, or a Thunder Hammer and Jump Pack Senior Officer.

So much for "My Dudes"?

If you defined "your dudes" as "that one guardsman who picked up a bolter" or "a senior officer who has a jump pack and thunder hammer" then yes, so much for your dudes.

Nah, I'm defining my dudes as Streb Garnsky, a guardsman weary of war, scrambling through the piles of the dead and wounded for something, anything, better than the lasgun that they've seen can't do anything meaningful towards the utterly terrifying alien abominations that have wiped out platoon after platoon, and grabbed a hold of their late Sergeant's bolter.

I don't really understand what you want here, other than rules for squad members to pick up the weapons of their fallen comrades. I personally wouldn't be too miffed by such a rule and if it existed I would absolutely be annoyed if a Guardsman couldn't pick up his sergeant's bolter. But this seems tangential to the discussion, unless you are claiming you should be able to give Guardsmen bolters at army creation... so again, fluff.

If it is that critical, just say he got promoted to sergeant the next battle, and buy him a bolter (though adding bolters as a special weapon option would be rad!).

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

I'm defining my dudes as Captain Vaness Kalliga, a hot-headed senior officer inspired by the myths of avenging angels she grew up with, and leads her platoon of drop troops from the front with a two-handed hammer, and using her modified drop pack as a way to tactically reposition herself in the heat of combat. Despite the concern for her safety from the troops under her command, she always seems to pull through, against all odds.

Just so we're being fair with your very flavourful descriptions.

That is a great description and a perfect argument for why Sororitas need jump packs. Unfortunately, the Imperial Guard cannot have them (in the lore)... And if they did, things would be at serious risk of flanderization between factions.

Preserving faction identity is important.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

I'm not asking for any fluff changes like you are though (re: thunder hammers and jump packs).

Jump packs aren't actually a fluff change, considering Guardsmen used to have them, and the Tanith are shown to use them in their assault on Phantine. And why can't guardsmen carry hammers? Seems like a pretty arbitrary restriction.

Guardsmen had jump packs in the era that Space Marines had shuriken catapults. We can talk about that era if you want, but it isn't really what I want - which fluff is better is a matter of opinion though.

Oh, and you confused Grav Chutes (which the guard have, including entire regiments of them) with Jump Packs. The Tanith used grave chutes at Phantine iirc. And Grav Chutes absolutely were an option until - guess what - GW killed them.

This is literally my point. In 3.5ed, you could buy Drop Troops, which literally gave your lads drop troops. Some form/way of playing drop troops lasted all they way until 9th, where GW outright killed the models with Grav Chutes (Elysians) and removed drop troops/deep strike as a regiment ability unless you don't play a regular regiment at all (Scions have it if you just wanted to play Storm Troopers).

Oh and they took the corpse out back and strung it up with the flyers nerf - now you can't even have the regiment drop out of Valkyries.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

I'm asking for GW to bring back the in-line-with-the-fluff customization that they used to have, that they've now lost in favor of ... well, considerably unfluffy alternatives.

You can have your fluff customisation. It's called modelling and fiction. If you want to represent your forces being worn down and weary, you can model them like that. If I want my Space Marines carrying power katanas, I'll model them like it. I don't need bespoke rules for it.

No, but this is a silly argument. Why even play a Warhammer game? Why not just play chess and just have the fiction of the battle be that it's in the 41st millennium?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
My stance on this point has changed over the years, but I think I prefer the idea of more basic rules, and leave the flavour of minor aspects to the players to build for themselves.

I think this is a fine idea too, and worthy of discussion. However, that isn't what's happening in 9th at all. What's happening in 9th is a huge, voracious, carcinogenic growth of rules bloat to try to get every faction under the sun to have rules - and yet it is still failing worse than earlier editions did, because the rules aren't written that well.

What you want has merit and I would love to discuss it in another thread.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Your armoured column specialises in full frontal assaults? Then deploy them in a frontal formation on the tabletop. Your Space Marines specialise in using bikes? Then take bikes. Your Tyranids prefer the use of Carnifex battering rams? Then take lots of Carnifexes.

This, of course, comes with the understanding that I'd want all options to be viable on tabletop.

Which gets back to balancing for narrative vs balancing for competitive. Something I think you and I would agree on.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

I mean everyone ignored my "Armageddon Steel Legion in 3.5 vs Armageddon Steel Legion now" example, but it's apt.

In one book, they're a force who:
- must take chimeras
- can take ratlings, unlike other regiments who cannot
- can take conscripts, who are also regiment restricted
- Xeno-Fighters Orks - i.e., are good at fighting orks
- can take storm troopers, which are ALSO regiment restricted

nowadays:
- vehicles ignore AP -1 (???)
- rapid fire at 18" (as we know, mechanized regiments absolutely love staying at medium range and firing on fully-automatic with nary a transport in sight).

Amazing. So take Chimeras, take Ratlings, take Conscripts, and take Storm Troopers.

If you want a fluffy army, build one. You don't need GW to force you into it.

I think you are missing the discussion here somewhat. I was attempting to prove that 9th did faction identity worse than earlier editions.

I was not attempting to prove that you need faction identity to be present in the rules at all, which is a separate and more lengthy discussion that probably deserves its own thread.

My $0.02 is that I prefer there to be faction identity represented in rules - the game is cooler when Saim-Hainn and Alaitoc play differently rather than just being different paint-schemes. I say that because army composition is only part of reflecting an army's lore on the tabletop.

 Grimtuff wrote:
If Cruddace were a book he'd be two books, if he were a spice he'd be flour. In the world of 31 flavours he's the bucket you wash the ice cream scoop in.

This gave me a hearty chuckle, thank you.

Hell's bell's there are quite a few Bees in quite a few bonnets.
I ain't gonna go through the many posts but I will give some generic responses.

1 - Stop comparing an outdated Codex with the new system where it doesn't have the content from the new system. At least use updated Codexes as examples.
2 - If you are going to use the outdated Codex, at least be able to correctly reference the material you are mad at. Don't make generalisations to prove a point that end up being flat-out wrong.
3 - Don't pretend that restrictions = better army character.

Peace out broskis.

1) updated codexes don't have options either - just Crusade content, which is a progression system. They don't allow for any different changes between two fresh-from-the-factory forces.

2) k, lemme know if you see this

3) why not? Restrictions define an army. It is the height of the absurd to suggest everyone should be able to take everything ever without restriction. An Imperial Guard army with 3 guardian squads, a space marine Terminator squad, a Helldrake, and 4 hammerheads would be pretty hilarious though.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
1) updated codexes don't have options either - just Crusade content, which is a progression system. They don't allow for any different changes between two fresh-from-the-factory forces.

Tonight I was going to sit down with my dex and my PA and try to respond to some of the stuff you've posted recently with some specific examples... And then it occurred to me that sometimes, writing the detailed posts prevents me from painting, modelling and playing as much as I'd like to- I'm a terribly slow painter, but I should be able to finish a civilian team for my campaign tonight.

So I thought I'd respond quickly to just this piece.

The first differentiation that 9th will provide is picking you subfaction. So for both of your fresh from the factory forces, perhaps one subfaction trait is a good match and for the other, a different trait is a better match. Next, you'll look at characters within the force- do they have auras that support the play style? If there is a choice of HQ, and each offers different aura options, which character offers the aura most in tune with force you are trying to create? Next, what are the WL trait options for those characters- specifically, are there any that affect units, or do they all affect only the character. Can any of these support the type of army you are trying to create? Don't be afraid to use a requisition strat to get an extra warlord trait in play if that will help you reflect the characteristics of the army you are trying to portray. Ask the same questions about relics.

Now are there ways to use the detachment system to express the character of your army? So rather than organizing your troops into one detachment, are there subgroups within the army that tend to function well together? Would the army, or any of the detachments in it, be likely to work with particular Imperial Agents or allies? If you're avoiding the Nachmund GT Mission Pack, this is a place to think about whether allying in another subfaction would allow you to better represent the army you're trying to create. Even with the Nachmund GT pack, it is still an appropriate place to look at an ally with a different selectable Keyword, like Scions for Guard.

By now you've got your detachments, your warlord(s) with their trait(s) and relic(s), you subfaction abilities. Now you can look at the options available to individual units- and again, I'll be the first to admit there won't be as many as there once were for most units. But there are still some choices at this level, and a handful of those choices can have a significant impact.

Once all of that's done, go through the strats in your book and pick the five that are fluffiest for the force you want to represent. You can put these on colour coded cards so that you can see at a glance that they are fluff and flavour based strats. Later, you'll do another pass to look for a few offensive must-have strats that are chosen more for their impact on the game than consistency with your fluff- these get a different colour; then do another pass for defensive strats and a third colour. How many go into the offensive and defensive categories will vary according to where your fluff stats fall on that spectrum and how impactful they can be.

Either way, you should now have a deck of no more than 15 strats- and you won't have to worry about any of the others in the book really. Theoretically, army a and army b will have at least some degree of variety in their decks. One or two of the offensive and defensive must haves that you've chosen are probably a big enough deal that you'd use them with any army from this faction, while the rest might synergize better with one army or the other based on its subfaction trait(s), its auras, it WL Trait(s) and Relic(s), its unit load-outs and upgrades, or its unit selection/ detachment structure.

Now I'm not saying that's AS detailed as it was in previous editions; I'm certainly not saying it's MORE detailed than previous editions. I'm comfortable saying that I think it provides more customization than you are giving it credit for; and it's very important to point out that if we're going to use Guard as an example, they don't have their 9th ed dex yet, and their options are really going to increase once they get it. I provided quite a walkthrough on building a fluffy DE army from the 9th dex earlier in this thread.

The other thing I'll say is that if the armies you've created using this process don't seem distinct enough yet, there are further options that you can use to distinguish them if you have in interest in playing crusade and can find a group who will play it with you. By the time your units become legendary, or even battle hardened, you'll have a lot of opportunities to customize further. I know that isn't an option for everyone, and I know that it isn't a preference for everyone. But if what you want most out of the game is customization, it does provide more opportunities than any other way to play.

9th has “customization” but it’s very block cut. Thou shalt take bad moons, with the gobshot, and the best armor teef can buy, and not one bit else. All that customization is just picking like a different skin, it does nothing for your dudes. Let me put a shokk attack gun on a biker mek so I can mishap teleport them into an assault morkdamnit.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 The Red Hobbit wrote:

I really love that level of customization back then, really makes your dudes, your dudes. Behind the scenes I often wonder what caused GW to move away from that level of customization to being more cookie cutter. Trimming down weapons loadouts based on whats in the box is easy to understand even if I disagree with it, but I've always wondered why they got rid of the upgrades like Heroic Senior Officer or Trademark item. Sure there is always balance issues when you stack multiple things on one unit but I wonder what else drove that.

Cruddace is lazy and/or bad at his job. Probably both. Prior to 8th his codexes in 40k were generally bland to play and lacked options or any sense of passion. Now he's been put in charge of the whole ship and its spread to the rest of the game and it shows.

He's almost certainly good at playing the corporate politics game.

Behold!

9th Ed "customisation":

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Behold!

9th Ed "customisation":

How elegant, the care and forethought put into this is scary...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Behold!

9th Ed "customisation":

This is quite possibly the absolutele worst worded wargear choice I have ever had the displeasure of reading

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Behold!

9th Ed "customisation":

I always love it when wargear options require a flowchart to explain them.

 vipoid wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Behold!

9th Ed "customisation":

I always love it when wargear options require a flowchart to explain them.

Yup. Real "simple."

I have a feeling 40k might be better if we just went back to points.

Instead of relics and WLT costing 1 CP, then many of them being weak just make them cost different point values. Then they could actually be balanced between each other.

Then either just increase stratagem CP costs across the board, or increase detachment CP costs, or both. To make up for no longer needing CP for the above.

Jarms48 wrote:
I have a feeling 40k might be better if we just went back to points.

Instead of relics and WLT costing 1 CP, then many of them being weak just make them cost different point values. Then they could actually be balanced between each other.

Then either just increase stratagem CP costs across the board, or increase detachment CP costs, or both. To make up for no longer needing CP for the above.

I mean you are right, or just make it so you only get 1 warlord trait, thats the whole point of the warlord trait.

PenitentJake wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
1) updated codexes don't have options either - just Crusade content, which is a progression system. They don't allow for any different changes between two fresh-from-the-factory forces.

Tonight I was going to sit down with my dex and my PA and try to respond to some of the stuff you've posted recently with some specific examples... And then it occurred to me that sometimes, writing the detailed posts prevents me from painting, modelling and playing as much as I'd like to- I'm a terribly slow painter, but I should be able to finish a civilian team for my campaign tonight.

So I thought I'd respond quickly to just this piece.

That's fair.

PenitentJake wrote:
The first differentiation that 9th will provide is picking you subfaction. So for both of your fresh from the factory forces, perhaps one subfaction trait is a good match and for the other, a different trait is a better match.

Stop right there criminal scum! (it's an Oblivion reference, you're not actually scum, Jake. )
"Picking subfaction traits" is part of what I have a problem with. In older books, subfaction traits were much more varied and customizable. I can go into specific examples, but right off the bat, this choice is suboptimal relative to the past for pretty much every dex (save the ones that didn't have subfaction traits at all. I acknowledge it is an improvement over those).

PenitentJake wrote:
Next, you'll look at characters within the force- do they have auras that support the play style? If there is a choice of HQ, and each offers different aura options, which character offers the aura most in tune with force you are trying to create? Next, what are the WL trait options for those characters- specifically, are there any that affect units, or do they all affect only the character. Can any of these support the type of army you are trying to create? Don't be afraid to use a requisition strat to get an extra warlord trait in play if that will help you reflect the characteristics of the army you are trying to portray. Ask the same questions about relics.

This is all well and good, but what if you're taking, say, a tank company or superheavy tank company? Non-core doesn't work with auras/psychic powers/whatever 90% of the time, so an Eldar Engines of Vaul detachment or something basically can't do this. Warlord traits also are irrelevant in such a case - your farseer having +1 to cast or whatever probably isn't even worth the RP. This only works if you're fitting within the "proscribed army design" (Want to run a Space Marine tank squadron? Tough luck, buddy, you get no benefit from auras, WLTs, nuffin). You might as well save the RP to buy other units instead. I'll call this the The Way They Were Meant To Be Played™ phenomenon for this post.

PenitentJake wrote:
Now are there ways to use the detachment system to express the character of your army? So rather than organizing your troops into one detachment, are there subgroups within the army that tend to function well together? Would the army, or any of the detachments in it, be likely to work with particular Imperial Agents or allies? If you're avoiding the Nachmund GT Mission Pack, this is a place to think about whether allying in another subfaction would allow you to better represent the army you're trying to create. Even with the Nachmund GT pack, it is still an appropriate place to look at an ally with a different selectable Keyword, like Scions for Guard.

This is also fine, but as you've said, they've just nerfed it, and 9/10ths of the time it is used to bring the "strongest" thing for your units. Even in Crusade, I've seen one-quintillion more Catachan tank companies (or really Spotter Details + Gunnery Experts) than I've seen Mordian. Usually, if you don't want your folks to be pants (which, I'll grant, can have your own narrative flair for Imperial Guard especially) there's a clear winner and clear loser depending on the unit type in each detachment.

PenitentJake wrote:
By now you've got your detachments, your warlord(s) with their trait(s) and relic(s), you subfaction abilities. Now you can look at the options available to individual units- and again, I'll be the first to admit there won't be as many as there once were for most units. But there are still some choices at this level, and a handful of those choices can have a significant impact.

As mentioned, this is true if you're following GW's vision for the army - but let's say I want to run a Sororitas tank detachment. I can run 3 Exorcists, 3 Castigators, and - oh, the idea's already DOA, okey dokey. Well, we'll run 6 castigators because our Crusade Group is friendly and ignores RO3 on non-problem units.

I have my detachment (Spearhead, because... well, I must). Warlord is... well, an infantry model, because... well, I mean who ever heard of a Sororitas tank officer anyways, posh. We'll pick a trait for her that helps her in melee, and buy her an immolator for the 10th tank with some Celestians, accepting the lore that there are no Sororitas tank commanders. That trait could be basically anything, doesn't help much. Miracle Dice manipulation maybe? Is it even worth the RP? Meh. No relics really help the concept too, but GOTTA HAVE THEM because it's the only way to make your canoness unique from someone else's, so... I guess whichever? None of them really help tanks. Is it even worth the RP?

Then we get to the unit level and - oh, no options. Maybe I have a tough time deciding which missile launcher to choose for the Exorcist... or maybe I just scrap the whole idea and go back to playing Sororitas the Way They Were Meant To Be Played™. And suddenly, they look like everyone else's sororitas again, pretty much - I bet I'll have some Repentia, some Retributors, some Dominions, and maybe some of the jump pack troops (either Seraphim or Zephyrim, whichever I prefer). And probably some BSS too.

PenitentJake wrote:
Once all of that's done, go through the strats in your book and pick the five that are fluffiest for the force you want to represent. You can put these on colour coded cards so that you can see at a glance that they are fluff and flavour based strats. Later, you'll do another pass to look for a few offensive must-have strats that are chosen more for their impact on the game than consistency with your fluff- these get a different colour; then do another pass for defensive strats and a third colour. How many go into the offensive and defensive categories will vary according to where your fluff stats fall on that spectrum and how impactful they can be.

Either way, you should now have a deck of no more than 15 strats- and you won't have to worry about any of the others in the book really. Theoretically, army a and army b will have at least some degree of variety in their decks. One or two of the offensive and defensive must haves that you've chosen are probably a big enough deal that you'd use them with any army from this faction, while the rest might synergize better with one army or the other based on its subfaction trait(s), its auras, it WL Trait(s) and Relic(s), its unit load-outs and upgrades, or its unit selection/ detachment structure.

Stratagems don't do it for me narratively. Even if we go back to say "well, my Russes have anti-tank rounds and I'm representing that with the Hail of Fire stratagem" then we're still stuck in the situation where one russ has one round once, until next turn when another russ (probably a different one) has one round once also. Then, you run out of CP and no more of your tanks have any antitank rounds, until they do next turn of course.

It's all just a horrible mess of ???????? narratively.

PenitentJake wrote:
Now I'm not saying that's AS detailed as it was in previous editions; I'm certainly not saying it's MORE detailed than previous editions. I'm comfortable saying that I think it provides more customization than you are giving it credit for; and it's very important to point out that if we're going to use Guard as an example, they don't have their 9th ed dex yet, and their options are really going to increase once they get it. I provided quite a walkthrough on building a fluffy DE army from the 9th dex earlier in this thread.

I think they provide more "false" options. You can make your folks the way GW says they're supposed to be VERY well. There's like 120 options, if you stay within the box GW put your dex in. But that means you're only slightly differentiated from other people also playing in that box, and as soon as you want to do something truly unique like a Sororitas Tank Company, everything just implodes.

Now, in 4th, a Sororitas tank company was also very difficult - you would've had to play 2500 points to field it, and you would've had to bring some Immolators (or Repressors)-as-tanks. It would look something like:
4x Sororitas Land Raiders (one Command tank, 3 Elites transports for your "priests" i.e. inquistors that shared a dex)
3x Exorcists
3x Immolators/Repressors

You could also include an Imperial Guard or Space Marine tank or two but you'd've had to make sacrifices elsewhere.

PenitentJake wrote:
The other thing I'll say is that if the armies you've created using this process don't seem distinct enough yet, there are further options that you can use to distinguish them if you have in interest in playing crusade and can find a group who will play it with you. By the time your units become legendary, or even battle hardened, you'll have a lot of opportunities to customize further. I know that isn't an option for everyone, and I know that it isn't a preference for everyone. But if what you want most out of the game is customization, it does provide more opportunities than any other way to play.

Sort of.

I mean, yes, it does. That's fair. But again, only if you stay in The Way They Were Meant To Be Played™ box - as soon as you have a Sororitas army that, say, would rather liberate the sector and do a holy ritual to drive back the Maledictum rather than one of the characters becoming a Living Saint, it kinda falls apart.

"What should 40k be"

One of the things I love about Battletech is that there are streamlined easy rules (like 40k is now) and there is an advanced ruleset with a ton more crunch and layers of rules you can choose to use (or ignore).

That advanced ruleset is why I love Battletech, but I also love that people that don't want that have the streamlined simple version to use and everyone gets what they want.

Thats what I wish 40k could be.

 auticus wrote:
"What should 40k be"

One of the things I love about Battletech is that there are streamlined easy rules (like 40k is now) and there is an advanced ruleset with a ton more crunch and layers of rules you can choose to use (or ignore).

That advanced ruleset is why I love Battletech, but I also love that people that don't want that have the streamlined simple version to use and everyone gets what they want.

Thats what I wish 40k could be.

I think they tried that with PL, but it fell super flat because power levels were SUPER unbalanced and still are, and GW has given no real credence to attempting to fix it.

@Unit-

Pretty solid responses. You're right, armoured companies are hard in 9th so far. There are more obstacles than I'd thought about at first.

Just a heads up though- Ro3 is very specifically a matched play rule that doesn't exist in Crusade, so your group isn't actually house-ruling when you choose not to follow (not that this counts for much).

Regarding your unconventional Cannoness: the path to sainthood consists of many trials; you develop abilities every time you complete a trial, but you only become a saint if you complete them all. It's perfectly acceptable to complete a trail and stop there.

Also, you can ignore trials entirely and go straight to the blessings.

But yeah, I'll give it to you- you've definitely put the spotlight on how weak this edition is for armoured companies. I could get behind some remedies for that too.

Unit1126PLL wrote:I don't really understand what you want here, other than rules for squad members to pick up the weapons of their fallen comrades. I personally wouldn't be too miffed by such a rule and if it existed I would absolutely be annoyed if a Guardsman couldn't pick up his sergeant's bolter. But this seems tangential to the discussion, unless you are claiming you should be able to give Guardsmen bolters at army creation... so again, fluff.

If it is that critical, just say he got promoted to sergeant the next battle, and buy him a bolter (though adding bolters as a special weapon option would be rad!).

It's more that I've come up with this great backstory and fluff, just like the previous examples of very well-detailed characters, but that's not represented in game. Seems a little like a cop-out and missing the point of comparison.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I'm defining my dudes as Captain Vaness Kalliga, a hot-headed senior officer inspired by the myths of avenging angels she grew up with, and leads her platoon of drop troops from the front with a two-handed hammer, and using her modified drop pack as a way to tactically reposition herself in the heat of combat. Despite the concern for her safety from the troops under her command, she always seems to pull through, against all odds.

Just so we're being fair with your very flavourful descriptions.

That is a great description and a perfect argument for why Sororitas need jump packs. Unfortunately, the Imperial Guard cannot have them (in the lore)... And if they did, things would be at serious risk of flanderization between factions.

Preserving faction identity is important.

Kalliga isn't a Sister of Battle. She's a Guardsman, in the same way that Sergeant Harker isn't a Space Marine. Most notably, she doesn't have:
Elite training
Power armour
Acts of Faith
The combat strategy of the Sororitas

Sorry, having a jump pack doesn't make Guardsmen into Space Marines or Sororitas.

Guardsmen had jump packs in the era that Space Marines had shuriken catapults. We can talk about that era if you want, but it isn't really what I want - which fluff is better is a matter of opinion though.

You said fluff changes - it's not like there isn't precedent for it, is all I'm saying.

Oh, and you confused Grav Chutes (which the guard have, including entire regiments of them) with Jump Packs. The Tanith used grave chutes at Phantine iirc. And Grav Chutes absolutely were an option until - guess what - GW killed them.

This is literally my point. In 3.5ed, you could buy Drop Troops, which literally gave your lads drop troops. Some form/way of playing drop troops lasted all they way until 9th, where GW outright killed the models with Grav Chutes (Elysians) and removed drop troops/deep strike as a regiment ability unless you don't play a regular regiment at all (Scions have it if you just wanted to play Storm Troopers).

Oh and they took the corpse out back and strung it up with the flyers nerf - now you can't even have the regiment drop out of Valkyries.

Uh, don't Valkyries have "Grav-Chute Insertion"? There's your way to have your regiment drop from Valks - take Valkyries, and use the Grav-Chute Insertion rule. The options exists, juts not in the same form.
Also, I think the Tanith used something different, if I'm not wrong. Not full lift jump packs, but not grav chutes either, if I'm not mistaken.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
You can have your fluff customisation. It's called modelling and fiction. If you want to represent your forces being worn down and weary, you can model them like that. If I want my Space Marines carrying power katanas, I'll model them like it. I don't need bespoke rules for it.

No, but this is a silly argument. Why even play a Warhammer game? Why not just play chess and just have the fiction of the battle be that it's in the 41st millennium?

That's an absurd abstraction of my stance, and you know it.

What, do I need rules for every different type of Leman Russ from every different type of Forge World and every different assembly line to represent the missing sixth hull rivet from the 39th tank produced on the ninth Wednesday of the year M41.826?

There's a point at which abstraction is more than fine. That's ultimately a personal thing, but I don't think things like power weapons, for example, need bespoke profiles.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
My stance on this point has changed over the years, but I think I prefer the idea of more basic rules, and leave the flavour of minor aspects to the players to build for themselves.

I think this is a fine idea too, and worthy of discussion. However, that isn't what's happening in 9th at all. What's happening in 9th is a huge, voracious, carcinogenic growth of rules bloat to try to get every faction under the sun to have rules - and yet it is still failing worse than earlier editions did, because the rules aren't written that well.

What you want has merit and I would love to discuss it in another thread.

Don't get me wrong, I *really* don't like how bloated 9th is getting, especially on things like subfaction rules and suchlike. I vastly preferred early 8th, with a handful of stratagems. All I'm saying is that you don't need bespoke rules to have Your Dudes.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Your armoured column specialises in full frontal assaults? Then deploy them in a frontal formation on the tabletop. Your Space Marines specialise in using bikes? Then take bikes. Your Tyranids prefer the use of Carnifex battering rams? Then take lots of Carnifexes.

This, of course, comes with the understanding that I'd want all options to be viable on tabletop.

Which gets back to balancing for narrative vs balancing for competitive. Something I think you and I would agree on.

I think so too. However, my point is simply that you shouldn't need a mechanical reason to lock you into what you choose to take. If you want a themed army, take the units that fit that theme.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
So take Chimeras, take Ratlings, take Conscripts, and take Storm Troopers.

If you want a fluffy army, build one. You don't need GW to force you into it.

I think you are missing the discussion here somewhat. I was attempting to prove that 9th did faction identity worse than earlier editions.

I was not attempting to prove that you need faction identity to be present in the rules at all, which is a separate and more lengthy discussion that probably deserves its own thread.

Worse, I think I agree, but I don't think I agree with how far apart they are.

My $0.02 is that I prefer there to be faction identity represented in rules - the game is cooler when Saim-Hainn and Alaitoc play differently rather than just being different paint-schemes. I say that because army composition is only part of reflecting an army's lore on the tabletop.

Whereas I think I might well prefer where things were just different paint schemes, and if you wanted to flavour your army to play a certain wait, then you take the various units, abilities, and suchlike that permit for that. But, perhaps I think that's just our difference of what we think 40k should be.

PenitentJake wrote:Now I'm not saying that's AS detailed as it was in previous editions; I'm certainly not saying it's MORE detailed than previous editions. I'm comfortable saying that I think it provides more customization than you are giving it credit for; and it's very important to point out that if we're going to use Guard as an example, they don't have their 9th ed dex yet, and their options are really going to increase once they get it. I provided quite a walkthrough on building a fluffy DE army from the 9th dex earlier in this thread.

Yeah, this I think sums up how I feel.

Can it be better? Sure, I'll totally agree with that. But is there customisation (and sufficient customisation, at that) for Your Dudes TM? I say yes.

They started to add more of that customization with the paid upgrades for HQs, but one way to further bring in that customizing is the free relic you get, and you can pay points for more if you want. After all, I really don't think anyone is gonna think an Imperial Fists Captain wielding BOTH the Teeth of Terra and one of the Relic pistols is gonna be broken.

Anyone remember Chaos Lords from 3.5? Now that was customisation...

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Oh, and you confused Grav Chutes (which the guard have, including entire regiments of them) with Jump Packs. The Tanith used grave chutes at Phantine iirc. And Grav Chutes absolutely were an option until - guess what - GW killed them.

This is literally my point. In 3.5ed, you could buy Drop Troops, which literally gave your lads drop troops. Some form/way of playing drop troops lasted all they way until 9th, where GW outright killed the models with Grav Chutes (Elysians) and removed drop troops/deep strike as a regiment ability unless you don't play a regular regiment at all (Scions have it if you just wanted to play Storm Troopers).

Oh and they took the corpse out back and strung it up with the flyers nerf - now you can't even have the regiment drop out of Valkyries.

Uh, don't Valkyries have "Grav-Chute Insertion"? There's your way to have your regiment drop from Valks - take Valkyries, and use the Grav-Chute Insertion rule. The options exists, juts not in the same form.
Also, I think the Tanith used something different, if I'm not wrong. Not full lift jump packs, but not grav chutes either, if I'm not mistaken.

I hate to be blunt, but you are wrong here. The Tanith used grav-chutes specifically, not jump packs. Also, I would like to point out that there is a difference between doing grav-chute insertions using Valks (which requires one to purchase Valkyries, natch) and giving all of one's army grav-chutes (as used to be possible with the 3.5 IG doctrines). Even if one's group is very forgiving regarding the new Flyer rules (allowing you to bring in more than two or three squads for jumps at a given time), that's more of an aircav/heliborne feel as opposed to the WW2 "let's carpet bomb the sky with people" of the old drop troops regiments.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Behold!

9th Ed "customisation":

For the life of me I can't remember a Primaris Captain with a powerfist and plasma pistol. Or a Special Issue Bolt Carbine.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Anyone remember Chaos Lords from 3.5? Now that was customisation...

Stop making the chaos players cry. they have never had a codex that good since.

Breton wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Behold!

9th Ed "customisation":

For the life of me I can't remember a Primaris Captain with a powerfist and plasma pistol. Or a Special Issue Bolt Carbine.

But Where was it from?

Breton wrote:
But Where was it from?

Store anniversary model.

Breton wrote:
Or a Special Issue Bolt Carbine.

It's on the non-special-character build of Master Lazarus - though it looks more like a traditional bolter to me than a bolt carbine.

Same is true of the Space Wolves Primaris Lieutenant - who still hasn't had a clampack release, for some reason.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Anyone remember Chaos Lords from 3.5? Now that was customisation...

Not only them. Chaos units in general could be tweaked in various ways. Only downside to that was that they became expensive and still had only W1.

Breton wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Behold!

9th Ed "customisation":

For the life of me I can't remember a Primaris Captain with a powerfist and plasma pistol. Or a Special Issue Bolt Carbine.

Those literally only exist because there's a specific model (often special edition?) with that loadout. In the case of the Special Issue Bolt Carbine it's faction-locked. Why they couldn't just count the thing as a MC bolt rifle I don't know. It's peak GW ineptitude. First remove all customisation, then add back in a bunch of options for one single model rather than opening that option up to everyone (or realising that adding yet another bolt weapon to the Codex is insane and you really should just stop).

Slipspace wrote:
(or realising that adding yet another bolt weapon to the Codex is insane and you really should just stop).

OR

OR

And bear with me here!

OR

Listen.

OR

We make EVERY weapon a bolt weapon! Lasbolters! Plasma bolters! Meltabolters! Kids love bolters! We'll sell millions.

Marines have 48 bolt weapons. 52 if you count combi-grav/plas/melta/flamer. And that's ignoring Relics.

Meh, give me back the indexes and early 8th. On the whole that was a nice pick up and play game.

If we're getting flavour though, CSM 3.5 dex levels with early 8th edition game rules and 5th ed USR.

Semper wrote:
Meh, give me back the indexes and early 8th. On the whole that was a nice pick up and play game.

If we're getting flavour though, CSM 3.5 dex levels with early 8th edition game rules and 5th ed USR.

Please no, 8, especially early 8th was a hot mess

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Behold!

9th Ed "customisation":

Just looking at this gives me a headache. I cannot fathom why they don't just say "this model can take 1 melee weapon and 1 shooting weapon from the list below". Oh yea, because they think we're too stupid to figure out how to kitbash a space marine with different weapons than the ones on the sprue.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

Semper wrote:
Meh, give me back the indexes and early 8th. On the whole that was a nice pick up and play game.

If we're getting flavour though, CSM 3.5 dex levels with early 8th edition game rules and 5th ed USR.

Please no, 8, especially early 8th was a hot mess

Early 8th was some good times. Any of you remember index bubblechukkas?, for sure one of the absolute best things to come from modern 40k…. Until it just died .

Here's what i would do:


-Remove Stratagems
-Make the game AA
-Remove the FoC/Detachment system in favor of an on-datasheet stat that determines how many of a unit you can bring
-Make relics/Warlord traits cost points instead of CP
-Remove CP, add a once per turn reroll on anything
-Double the wounds on vehicles and monsters, give them a 2+/3+ save
-Expand the S/T chart so it goes higher than T8 and S9 (yeah i know about x2S stuff)
-Lower the range on everything. basic guns should be 18", max range should be 36 (with very few guns getting to 48")
-Fix the modifiers cap so that its a maximum of -1/+1 per source/player (shooting at rangers in cover through dense after advancing with assault weapons should have you shoot at -3)
-simplify the lawyer-speech rules
-make missions interesting and diverse (not just different objective/deployment placement)
-make a heavier use of the actions framework, bake it in the missions, make missions require actions by different kind of units (vehicles/monsters/ beasts/bikes/infantry/characters) as part of the primaries

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Here's what i would do:


-Remove Stratagems

Stratagems are fine, it's the straight up attack/defense ones with no prerequisites that need to go. One Primaris unit going Transhuman just doesn't make sense. Did the other units in the army just forget they can shrug off damage like that?

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, I like a well-balanced game. I like a game where player skill at the table is the main determinant of victory and defeat. 40k... Is not that. And will probably never be that. GW just doesn't care enough to make a balanced game.

But! I also like customization. I like being able to tweak and modify models and lists and all that. And GW used to be good about that. Nowadays... Not so much.

Look at Dark Eldar. Stonkingly powerful! Really flipping boring.

I feel like, if GW isn't going to do more than cursory balance, they should at least make it so you can customize the ever-loving hell out of your guys. But that's going away, and it sucks.

Agree? Disagree? Am I a moron, or do you feel similarly?

I would ask you - what is it that makes you want to play 40k?

In my case it was the imagery and miniatures, but I played the game despite the rules. Eventually I got sick of the cycle of 6 months to create an army > play three games, remember why you stopped playing it before > gap then 6 months to create a new army and repeat.

If it's the miniatures, you can find lots of online groups now with older editions of the game being played which might be more to your taste.
The Horus Heresy ruleset is more or less an 'official' extension of 7th edition. A lot of people say that had its own problems, but nonetheless it's an alternative to current editions, and has a great community.

If it's the imagery and background that pulls you in, have you considered Adeptus Titanicus or Epic? The former is still officially supported, and for the latter there is a sizeable social media community, and depending on where you live it shouldn't be too hard to find players.

I do think though that it's almost like a lot of people are 'trapped' into only playing modern 40k. It's like only playing a CD you don't really like, or a video game that you've completed but just come back to because of familiarity. There is so much more out there, certainly a lot more better crafted (even within 40k's own history and GW's alternate games), it can be the hardest thing to do but making that jump to a new games system can really revitalise your interest in wargaming.

I wouldn't remove stratagems, I'd remove all army specific ones, make some character specific ones, and make the rest generic. I'd also heavily limit CP.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

Semper wrote:
Meh, give me back the indexes and early 8th. On the whole that was a nice pick up and play game.

If we're getting flavour though, CSM 3.5 dex levels with early 8th edition game rules and 5th ed USR.

Please no, 8, especially early 8th was a hot mess

Early 8th was some good times. Any of you remember index bubblechukkas?, for sure one of the absolute best things to come from modern 40k…. Until it just died .

Exalted!

I agree I'd take that over the new one ever time. I did the one form the codex a little wrong but it was still just as fun. I just rolled each dice at each step instead of all at once and it was good fun and dead killy from time to time. Not a fan of the current one. Toooo BLAND.

And I'd take the index list over the current codex as well. Just not a fan of this codex. GW was all like "these will be the best book each faction has ever had" and I have yet to see the books they were talking about.
They should of said, we hate Ork boys and we plan to give you a list where you just don't need to buy them let alone have them in your army lists and we're more than happy to just keep them in our warehouse.

And before some one makes a snarky remark about that, yes, I will be bringing that up as how I want to field my Orks for the next time I get them on the table with my usual Skrumgrod, the only opponent I play 40K with now days. He'll cry about it because he's only prepping for his next tournament but maybe I can twist his arm. Other wise the Orks won't be out for a game.
I'd gladly give up T5 for a Mob rule that actually helps me.

I do think though that it's almost like a lot of people are 'trapped' into only playing modern 40k.

A lot of that is because (in my experience) vast swathes of this community will only play what is active and "living" and anything past or dead is left behind.

Finding people to play older editions is insanely difficult (in my experience). I know it can be done but the effort you have to spend to find such a game is often more than most people are willing to endure.

Especially since the main draw of 40k (in my experience) for most people is that you can find a game anywhere on the planet at any time and that your monetary investment into the game is almost 100% secure.

If you had to put energy into drumming up a community for 40k like almost every other game, I seriously doubt it'd be where it is today. Most places (all places I've been to) there is and has been a thriving 40k community already prebuilt. No other game can say that. And older editions share that same issue because you have to find someone willing to invest in older editions where their investment is not so safe, and they may own models that they can never (or rarely) use (like most other games out there).

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Here's what i would do:


-Remove Stratagems

Stratagems are fine, it's the straight up attack/defense ones with no prerequisites that need to go. One Primaris unit going Transhuman just doesn't make sense. Did the other units in the army just forget they can shrug off damage like that?

Yup, they are completely useless without being reminded of stuff they know/are capable of doing.

But I'd kill all faction specific ones and anything that used to be wargear/on dataslate goes back to normal.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Marines have 48 bolt weapons. 52 if you count combi-grav/plas/melta/flamer. And that's ignoring Relics.

My favorite fact about the current Boltercount is that 52 is (or was, last 'dex) the number of ranged weapons in the tau dex.

Semper wrote:
Meh, give me back the indexes and early 8th.

the game you want is called One Page Rules

I still vote for a 4th edition resurgence. Try it sometime - actually play a game. It will blow your minds :p

just got a game of the old Kill Team from the back of the rulebook some time ago

my interest in the modern one was gone, even the new models do not hold up to the conversions based on the old plastic models shown there

but in general my hopes are on the FireFight rules from Mantic, Beta looked promising, just needs and "Uncharted" book for 40k refugees armies

if not, I will bite the bullet, sell the 40k stuff that is saleable and get Star Wars Legion

(as I never was a big fan of 8th, so also the OPR rules are not my cup of tee, for the same reasons)

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Here's what i would do:


-Remove Stratagems

Stratagems are fine, it's the straight up attack/defense ones with no prerequisites that need to go. One Primaris unit going Transhuman just doesn't make sense. Did the other units in the army just forget they can shrug off damage like that?

I disagree, they just add way too many rules to remember for each army. If they truly *must* stay, i'd say have them tied to characters and chosen at the start of the turn (like AoS does)

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Here's what i would do:


-Remove Stratagems

Stratagems are fine, it's the straight up attack/defense ones with no prerequisites that need to go. One Primaris unit going Transhuman just doesn't make sense. Did the other units in the army just forget they can shrug off damage like that?

I disagree, they just add way too many rules to remember for each army. If they truly *must* stay, i'd say have them tied to characters and chosen at the start of the turn (like AoS does)

If only AoS chose them at the start of the turn. Much as I like the game, the fact that Command Abilities happen outside of the Hero Phase 90% of the time annoys me to no end.

Pacific wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, I like a well-balanced game. I like a game where player skill at the table is the main determinant of victory and defeat. 40k... Is not that. And will probably never be that. GW just doesn't care enough to make a balanced game.

But! I also like customization. I like being able to tweak and modify models and lists and all that. And GW used to be good about that. Nowadays... Not so much.

Look at Dark Eldar. Stonkingly powerful! Really flipping boring.

I feel like, if GW isn't going to do more than cursory balance, they should at least make it so you can customize the ever-loving hell out of your guys. But that's going away, and it sucks.

Agree? Disagree? Am I a moron, or do you feel similarly?

I would ask you - what is it that makes you want to play 40k?

In my case it was the imagery and miniatures, but I played the game despite the rules. Eventually I got sick of the cycle of 6 months to create an army > play three games, remember why you stopped playing it before > gap then 6 months to create a new army and repeat.

If it's the miniatures, you can find lots of online groups now with older editions of the game being played which might be more to your taste.
The Horus Heresy ruleset is more or less an 'official' extension of 7th edition. A lot of people say that had its own problems, but nonetheless it's an alternative to current editions, and has a great community.

If it's the imagery and background that pulls you in, have you considered Adeptus Titanicus or Epic? The former is still officially supported, and for the latter there is a sizeable social media community, and depending on where you live it shouldn't be too hard to find players.

I do think though that it's almost like a lot of people are 'trapped' into only playing modern 40k. It's like only playing a CD you don't really like, or a video game that you've completed but just come back to because of familiarity. There is so much more out there, certainly a lot more better crafted (even within 40k's own history and GW's alternate games), it can be the hardest thing to do but making that jump to a new games system can really revitalise your interest in wargaming.

Lore and setting, i play many different game systems that have great rules. the story (well before cadia fell) was the thing that keeps my interest in the setting.

thus, the reason to go back to older editions

auticus wrote:

I do think though that it's almost like a lot of people are 'trapped' into only playing modern 40k.

A lot of that is because (in my experience) vast swathes of this community will only play what is active and "living" and anything past or dead is left behind.

Finding people to play older editions is insanely difficult (in my experience). I know it can be done but the effort you have to spend to find such a game is often more than most people are willing to endure.

Especially since the main draw of 40k (in my experience) for most people is that you can find a game anywhere on the planet at any time and that your monetary investment into the game is almost 100% secure.

If you had to put energy into drumming up a community for 40k like almost every other game, I seriously doubt it'd be where it is today. Most places (all places I've been to) there is and has been a thriving 40k community already prebuilt. No other game can say that. And older editions share that same issue because you have to find someone willing to invest in older editions where their investment is not so safe, and they may own models that they can never (or rarely) use (like most other games out there).

Indeed. i have been lucky with a regular group of veterans who play 5th ed at my FLGS who have been playing the game regularly since 3rd ed. and we have managed to teach new players the older system and they love it. we also don't give a GAK about proxies. i currently own hard copies and bring with me every good codex from 3rd-7th (including chapter approved and index astartes) minus dark eldar '5th' (that is my next purchase), GSC (7th), demons (4th), custodes (7th) and deathwatch(7th) many of which i have PDF copies of. so, whoever comes in to play we can build them a 5th ed compatible army quite easily.

kodos wrote:just got a game of the old Kill Team from the back of the rulebook some time ago

my interest in the modern one was gone, even the new models do not hold up to the conversions based on the old plastic models shown there

but in general my hopes are on the FireFight rules from Mantic, Beta looked promising, just needs and "Uncharted" book for 40k refugees armies

if not, I will bite the bullet, sell the 40k stuff that is saleable and get Star Wars Legion

(as I never was a big fan of 8th, so also the OPR rules are not my cup of tee, for the same reasons)

Index 8th was way too simple for a 28mm squad based tactical war game. where it shines is in epic scale (halving all ranges for movement/shooting) where the number of units you have on the table justify the simple rules for army building, movement, terrain and shooting. especially when there are only 3 strats (the same ones) for every army. it adds a bit more flavor than old epic rules but still plays fast where i can throw down an effective 10K point army and get a full game in in about 2 hours.

Honestly I'm pretty sure that anyone who says stratagems are good either never played anything before 8th and just assume all the flak about USR is true, or is being willfully ignorant.

Stratagems are USR but some how made 10x worse.
USR you could find 90% of them in the BRB, the other 10% in the codexs or which most were never even in play.

Now with stratagems there are WAY more gottem special rules because now I have to know what stars my oponanta army has, then what units in his list can be effects by those stats, which are only avalibe In that army codex then I have to know which subfaction he is and what stats that gives him access to.

Stratagems are basically the worst thing to come from 8th because it also took away from units what made them unique. Look at harliquins, all their unique weapons are now just crappy strats

Stratagems and USRs are good, just not GWs version of it

But this is always the case with GW copying rules from other games, no matter if USRs, Stratagems or movement tools, they don't understand why they are used in the first place and just hence they cannot implement those in a useful way

The idea of stratagems are fine, but done horribly, strats should be 100% generic and everyone has access to the same ones. All the specific ones should be baked into the unit to some capacity.

I wouldn't remove strats.

I'd just reduce the army specific ones by about 2/3rds or 3/4ths, and then outside of the 'Core' ones, you'd get to pick an amount of strats based on the game size (Patrol, Onslaught, etc.).

And obviously no equipment-based strats, 'cause those are beyond stupid.

I love when people helpfully demonstrate in real time why most people stick with the Cult of Officialdom.

...it's because everyones got their own idea of what 'the ideal version' of 40k would be, and everyone else thinks that that person's idea is terrible and removes the True Essence of True 40k, which resides in their brain.

most people would rather both be playing a game that they both think is bad and have a shared absent entity to blame for it, than be playing a game they think is bad and the person opposite them thinks is good and theyre the only one to blame for it.

 the_scotsman wrote:
most people would rather both be playing a game that they both think is bad and have a shared absent entity to blame for it, than be playing a game they think is bad and the person opposite them thinks is good and theyre the only one to blame for it.

This would be an interesting psychology dissertation ( for real ).

I'd be fine with a rule of 1 attack/defense strategem per player turn (one on your turn, one on your opponent's).

Then again, this is coming from a Guard player...

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Here's what i would do:


-Remove Stratagems

Stratagems are fine, it's the straight up attack/defense ones with no prerequisites that need to go. One Primaris unit going Transhuman just doesn't make sense. Did the other units in the army just forget they can shrug off damage like that?

I disagree, they just add way too many rules to remember for each army. If they truly *must* stay, i'd say have them tied to characters and chosen at the start of the turn (like AoS does)

Oh I wouldn't mind more of them being more character driven. Like something for Marine HQs to give a True Grit aura for a turn instead of the silly "One Space Wolves unit remembered they can shoot in melee".

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Honestly I'm pretty sure that anyone who says stratagems are good either never played anything before 8th and just assume all the flak about USR is true, or is being willfully ignorant.

I used to think the opposite.

Anyone who talks about "needing to memorize every strat in their dex" sounds to me like someone who hasn't played the game, because that's not how it's done. Literally everyone I've ever talked to IRL shortlists to ten in their heads if not using actual cards (which is what I do).

Some people's short list is 7, some is 12. People who play the same army don't always have the same short list- sometimes it's because they include different units, sometimes it's because they play a different subfaction, and sometimes it's just personal preference.

It's funny, because I've seen people suggest making it a formal rule ie: pick five strats before the first turn; those plus core BRB strats are all you get. And I'm thinkin: doesn't everyone kinda do this anyway? Like I said, the size of the short list varies from player to player, but literally everyone I've talked to in real life does it.

If you've got ten or more games under your belt, there's probably one or two strats that you've used in every game you've played. There's probably five others that you've used often enough that you can run them from memory. And honestly, that's a pretty full suite. I tend to have more, because I use cards.

 auticus wrote:

I do think though that it's almost like a lot of people are 'trapped' into only playing modern 40k.

A lot of that is because (in my experience) vast swathes of this community will only play what is active and "living" and anything past or dead is left behind.

Finding people to play older editions is insanely difficult (in my experience). I know it can be done but the effort you have to spend to find such a game is often more than most people are willing to endure.

Especially since the main draw of 40k (in my experience) for most people is that you can find a game anywhere on the planet at any time and that your monetary investment into the game is almost 100% secure.

If you had to put energy into drumming up a community for 40k like almost every other game, I seriously doubt it'd be where it is today. Most places (all places I've been to) there is and has been a thriving 40k community already prebuilt. No other game can say that. And older editions share that same issue because you have to find someone willing to invest in older editions where their investment is not so safe, and they may own models that they can never (or rarely) use (like most other games out there).

Also, even for people who think older editions of 40k are better than current editions (which may or may not be true) they're still GW games. They're not well balanced, they don't work that well as pickup games, they're terrible as tournament games. Even 5th edition, which is often touted here as the best tournament edition, still requires that you have a gentlemanly agreement to not play grey knights or a couple of different Space Wolf/Guard lists.

Many games have been released in the past 30 years that are just better to play than any edition of 40k is. If you're already giving up active support and pre-existing community, why would you continue to play 40k at all? You're already picking up a dead game, why not pick up a GOOD dead game?

My issue with strats is this.
Unlike USR which I could find the VAST majority of in the BrB, strats are littered throughout multiple books and codexes and FAQs.

I don't mind complicated or even memorizing a lot of rules, when they are localized and accessable. Strats are not that, strats are all over the place and require even more knowledge of other people's army.

Like I said before let's take relentless, like it someone had a USR that lets just say is "will of the necrons" or what ever I just made this up and it convays relentless to all troops in the army. That's fine I know what relentless is, I have relentless on my bikes, I understand this, every other person that does not use "will or the necrons" understands this.

8th or 9th would take that same rule, make it a strat then say, "all necron units that are troops in your army my move and shoot with our penalty". Now I don't know what this strat is, I don't know it exists if someone where to tell me they use this I would have no idea unless I specificallt had that codex to read this strat. This bonus is not listen anywhere outside of it.

This is a simple watered down example. But this is what I hate about strats they just reword existing rules, because, flavor? Then just act as a way to blind side anyone that does not know about it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also that strats take out things that units should just have baked in.

PenitentJake wrote:
And I'm thinkin: doesn't everyone kinda do this anyway

I think the benefit is then I know all my opponent's available strats and can plan around them.

 the_scotsman wrote:
I love when people helpfully demonstrate in real time why most people stick with the Cult of Officialdom.

...it's because everyones got their own idea of what 'the ideal version' of 40k would be, and everyone else thinks that that person's idea is terrible and removes the True Essence of True 40k, which resides in their brain.

most people would rather both be playing a game that they both think is bad and have a shared absent entity to blame for it, than be playing a game they think is bad and the person opposite them thinks is good and theyre the only one to blame for it.

Most people would be playing a game they both think is good. I would think that's pretty obvious.

The rest is A. only true of friends and B. solves itself. In a pickup game, it's not your responsibility to make sure your opponent likes 40k. That's their burden to bear. All you have to do is not be an a-hole in that one particular game.

And B. If you and friend are playing a game one of you likes and the other one doesn't, in real life, you just don't play that game together anymore. My friend hates 40k, loves Marvel Crisis Protocol, so we play that. If 40k was the only reason you were friends, you weren't really friends.

As an attempt to sound profound, it's a bit silly.

 the_scotsman wrote:
I love when people helpfully demonstrate in real time why most people stick with the Cult of Officialdom.

...it's because everyones got their own idea of what 'the ideal version' of 40k would be, and everyone else thinks that that person's idea is terrible and removes the True Essence of True 40k, which resides in their brain.

most people would rather both be playing a game that they both think is bad and have a shared absent entity to blame for it, than be playing a game they think is bad and the person opposite them thinks is good and theyre the only one to blame for it.

Absolutely nailed it.

I am just enjoy playing 40K and do not fancy myself as a game designer. Game is not perfect. Lots of perfect games in the 50% clearance bin at the FLGS.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Honestly I'm pretty sure that anyone who says stratagems are good either never played anything before 8th and just assume all the flak about USR is true, or is being willfully ignorant.

Stratagems are USR but some how made 10x worse.
USR you could find 90% of them in the BRB, the other 10% in the codexs or which most were never even in play.

Now with stratagems there are WAY more gottem special rules because now I have to know what stars my oponanta army has, then what units in his list can be effects by those stats, which are only avalibe In that army codex then I have to know which subfaction he is and what stats that gives him access to.

Stratagems are basically the worst thing to come from 8th because it also took away from units what made them unique. Look at harliquins, all their unique weapons are now just crappy strats

So someone who disagrees with you is either a noob or ignorant? OK. Got it.

I've been playing 40K since 2nd Ed. I like Stratagems and I am just fine operating without USRs. These past two editions have had the cleanest gameplay experience for me. Very rarely do I have to head to the rulebook. This stands in contrast to previous editions of 40K (I did step out for 7th) and to my Flames of War experience where each game is an exercise in French Code Civile arguments.

No, they might not be either, I just personally think that like strats as they are now either is being over dramatic about USR being bad, or never played anything other then with strats.

Not a noob, ignorant perhaps but being ignorant is not bad or insulting.

I'm a casual player so perhaps my opinion is meaningless. But I really want to like 40k and I just don't. The basic rules for 9th are fine, they were (outside of some strange wording) easy to pick up. But then I picked up a codex and there is just so many extra rules and interactions to remember, I just don't know why anyone bothers.

I'd much rather play without strategems, without chapter tactics, without anything that isn't on the dang data slate. There's so much flipping back and forth during a game now to find rules and special abilities and relics. And then you have to worry about FAQs and expansion books, and Erratas.

But the worst of it is that strategems just feel like "gotchas" and "feels bad moments". I look at a unit, and I can look it up in battlescribe or glance at the datasheet in his codex and ok, I know what it does. but then he pulls out some wacky combo of strategems and it does something completely different. And I'm always worried I'm forgetting some strategem that I need to use to work, and I have to flipping take notes to keep track of what i should be doing with my units.

I just want to play a game of toy soldiers, and have fun for a couple hours. Maybe 40k just isn't for me anymore. At least kill team doesn't have so MUCH complexity.

And I don't mind the idea of giving strats the USR treatment BTW; I've said it be for, if you want to give the same name to every identical rule, and you want to put them in the BRB, fine.

But I HATED the way they executed USR's in previous editions. I'd prefer they continue to put every USR an army can use into its dex. You want'em in the BRB? Fine, won't object. But when I buy a dex, I want the text of rule it contains to be in the damn book.

And NO USR should ever just be a combination of two different USRs. I'd rather they made a third USR that contained the text for the two USRs it combined- cross referencing SUCKED.

But given these two modifications to the way they worked in previous editions, I'd support a return of USRs.

I think we talked about this in the last thread. For the bad rap that USRs get, it was pretty much agreed on (unlike the thread before that) that ultimately the real issues everyone had, once we hashed it out, wasn't with USRs, but how GW bungled them from the word go (like the USR that gives two USRs).

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think we talked about this in the last thread. For the bad rap that USRs get, it was pretty much agreed on (unlike the thread before that) that ultimately the real issues everyone had, once we hashed it out, wasn't with USRs, but how GW bungled them from the word go (like the USR that gives two USRs).

Yeah pretty much, im pretty sure in that last thread i even said, that if GW would have laid out and presented the USR in a way that was a lot easier to find/reference, no one really would have cared.
Like if we had data cards back in 7th that had just all the USR that model got, i dont think any one would have been complaining about them.

Many games have been released in the past 30 years that are just better to play than any edition of 40k is. If you're already giving up active support and pre-existing community, why would you continue to play 40k at all? You're already picking up a dead game, why not pick up a GOOD dead game?

I thought this was clearly addressed. many of us enjoy the grim dark 40K universe setting and also i have a huge collection of 40K minis dating back 20 years. some of my minis are probably older than some of the posters on these forums. i would still like to use them in games of 40K where i don't have to chase the flavor of the month. since i hate the rules mechanics for 9th and i still own all the old rule books and codexes why would i NOT continue to play 40K? it is only 1 game in my collection and it is a different play style than say infinity, DUST, warmachine, or classic battletech.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think we talked about this in the last thread. For the bad rap that USRs get, it was pretty much agreed on (unlike the thread before that) that ultimately the real issues everyone had, once we hashed it out, wasn't with USRs, but how GW bungled them from the word go (like the USR that gives two USRs).

Yeah pretty much, im pretty sure in that last thread i even said, that if GW would have laid out and presented the USR in a way that was a lot easier to find/reference, no one really would have cared.
Like if we had data cards back in 7th that had just all the USR that model got, i dont think any one would have been complaining about them.

I always see the USR problem being about 7th. in 5th there was no USR problem. there were 22 in the BRB (2 1/2 pages) and that was it. they covered everything in the game and were easy to learn and remember.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Lots of perfect games in the 50% clearance bin at the FLGS.

Can you point me to these stores? I'd love to buy some cheap Malifaux and Infinity models.

 Sim-Life wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Lots of perfect games in the 50% clearance bin at the FLGS.

Can you point me to these stores? I'd love to buy some cheap Malifaux and Infinity models.

Flying to Canada might eat into the savings and Malifaux isn’t in there. Malifaux doesn’t see much play, although I know two fellows in another town that quite like it.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Lots of perfect games in the 50% clearance bin at the FLGS.

Can you point me to these stores? I'd love to buy some cheap Malifaux and Infinity models.

Flying to Canada might eat into the savings and Malifaux isn’t in there. Malifaux doesn’t see much play, although I know two fellows in another town that quite like it.

So what games do you see in the 50% off bin? Obsolete Warmahordes stuff?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I think we talked about this in the last thread. For the bad rap that USRs get, it was pretty much agreed on (unlike the thread before that) that ultimately the real issues everyone had, once we hashed it out, wasn't with USRs, but how GW bungled them from the word go (like the USR that gives two USRs).

Sometimes it was necessary, like how Zealot functioned due to Hatred applying to a model rather than unit. However I don't think most people would think a model giving Hatred to an attached unit as broken, so it's whatever.

 Sim-Life wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Lots of perfect games in the 50% clearance bin at the FLGS.

Can you point me to these stores? I'd love to buy some cheap Malifaux and Infinity models.

Flying to Canada might eat into the savings and Malifaux isn’t in there. Malifaux doesn’t see much play, although I know two fellows in another town that quite like it.

So what games do you see in the 50% off bin? Obsolete Warmahordes stuff?

Stopped in to the FLGS on the way back from work to pick up an order - poked around the bins.

My mistake, one bin is a mixture of Infinity and indeed Malifaux at 50%. The other is a mixture of Warmasomethings. Not sure on the price, but the line had actual shelves at the FLGS circa 2016. Now what's left is clumped around this bin.

You'll probably find some of the Infinity minis are old line miniatures that have been replaced or not even valid in the game any more (some Combined Army options for example). I'm not sure if CB asks for the miniatures back once they get superseded (or stores aren't able to do this) as I've noticed a lot of FLGS have that kind of stuff in their bargain bins.

 Pacific wrote:
You'll probably find some of the Infinity minis are old line miniatures that have been replaced or not even valid in the game any more (some Combined Army options for example). I'm not sure if CB asks for the miniatures back once they get superseded (or stores aren't able to do this) as I've noticed a lot of FLGS have that kind of stuff in their bargain bins.

This is the reason I asked. Most mini companies will lets FLGSs discount their models if the rules they put in with them become obsolete or get a resculpt. Both Infinity and Malifaux have had new editions in the last few years. Framing them allowing FLGSs to discount the minis because they're obsolete as the games being unpopular or inferior to 40k is disingenuous.

Except WmH. That game is actually dead.

 Sim-Life wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Lots of perfect games in the 50% clearance bin at the FLGS.

Can you point me to these stores? I'd love to buy some cheap Malifaux and Infinity models.

O/T but I have some pan-o and ariadna I'm not using and am happy to sell. :p

Honestly though the 'bargain bin' isn't something I've seen much of round here, though I'm always hopeful I'll find one with some old gems

 Sim-Life wrote:
Except WmH. That game is actually dead.

What happened to WmH?

Mark 2 seemed really popular but then Mark 3 appeared to just collapse overnight.

had some more thought about this, realised i was describing Grimdark Future by OnePageRules lol. Glad i made the swap

 vipoid wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Except WmH. That game is actually dead.

What happened to WmH?

Mark 2 seemed really popular but then Mark 3 appeared to just collapse overnight.

Off topic but basically this:

Deadnight wrote:
For me it just felt mk3 was a rushed cash grab full of changes rather than improvements.

More importantly to me pp used to be the 'different' approach company. With mk3 they did everything they claimed gw did and they'd never do.

They had to redesign skorne from the ground up straight out of the gate and rewrite half the rules (never mind playtesting this edition for 3 years and balance...). I didn't like how omnipotent themes became (basically play a theme or gtfo) and I didnt like how bloated the game was becoming, both on the tabletop and in the rosters. CID didn't help. As a khador player I saw nothing that excited me for years. The design space was just cluttered and loads if the new ideas were just soulless. They run out of ideas. While I love the models, trencher long gunners was one example. What's next? Winter guard pikemen? Iron fang kommandos?

Add to that pp made a lot of anti-retailer decisions at that time which turned retail against them (really poor idea when you rely on third party retail!) and killed their forums which alienated a lot of fans (I was glad the forum was killed; to me it was a toxic salt mine poisoned by group think and zero creativity) but still... they axed the press ganger programme which was a huge self-inflicted wound since that basically wiped out their grassroots volunteers. no quarter was canned which crushed me. There was no new fiction from skull Island. Hell there was no new fiction (unless you count thr hengehold twitter tweets). It was just a great reset right hack to where it all started. Mk2 had better plot lines like caine/magnus/julius. Mk3 fekt like 'the great reset'. Toruk assaulted the mainland directly. And then went back home. No change. Khador gave back point Bourne. With the start of mk2 there were seismic shifts. Mk3 didn't give me that.

Where I am in the UK also the player base was struggling though the end of mk2. It was dropping off anyway. Mk3 just didn't get people involved enough. And again, removal of the press gangers sucked out a lot of the enthusiasm that remained. Plus by this point the game was so big and bloated and unwieldy the 'burden of knowledge' required versus the payoff was just simply not worth the hassle. A further point was the community itself had etwnched around a hardcore of players who were adamant about a single expression of the game and if it wasn't 75pts steamroller, it was gtfo. There was no casual scene. There was no grass leagues. This has admittedly changed because of a community project (not a pp one) called brawlmachine but its arguably too little too late (best of luck to them though!)

Add to that was the gw renaissance at this time. Like it or not gw turned a corner and were doing gangbusters on so many fronts around then. Combine pp's misteps with gw stepping up their game and that's only going one way.

 vipoid wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Except WmH. That game is actually dead.

What happened to WmH?

Mark 2 seemed really popular but then Mark 3 appeared to just collapse overnight.

Basically what was quoted above.
Themes, CID and axing the Press Ganger system were the big hits IMO.

Theme became monolists. You had to buy three copies of a monopose unit that PP overcharged for as well as 3 solos and you basically couldn't use any of these models in any other list in the faction. Its like if GW announced that for 10th Edition your Space Marine army could only take all Devestators or all Tacticals or all Intercessors and if you do you 500pts free to spend on more of the same marines and they get some extra universal rules. You don't HAVE to take those but then you don't get the extra 500pts and extra rules.

The CID was a mess. They'd only do one faction at a time so everything was uneven and they did them at a very slow place. They often straight up ignored feedback (which was often dubious at best in fairness) and ended up doing whatever they wanted anyway. For a game where learning the opponents rules is fairly important having them all constantly in flux was a pain.

Killing Press Gangers basically killed any incentive people had to run tournaments or intro games so the presence at FLGSs basically dried up.

WM/H became with MK3 what 40k was at the end of 7th

don't know who thought it was a good idea to copy&paste the worst of GW to become as popular (could be the designers or the community)

To echo everyone else, I feel themes was the big one.

If the mood had been different it might have encouraged people to add new units (even if stacking multiple copies of monopose models is hardly attractive). Instead a lot of people just decided having their collection cut into non-functional bits was a good time to call it quits. Sure themes wasn't mandatory - but its like say formations wasn't mandatory in 7th. You were just destroyed.

I also feel the quality of PP's mini output also collapsed (if you could even get hold of it) compared with GW's post-Deathwatch Overkill releases.

 kodos wrote:
WM/H became with MK3 what 40k was at the end of 7th

don't know who thought it was a good idea to copy&paste the worst of GW to become as popular (could be the designers or the community)

I've heard a lot of rumours about the PP upper management basically being a bunch of egotistical babies who don't like being told they're ideas aren't the best ever. That isn't a dig at Jason Soles' haircut. Mostly. GW is at least publically owned so they're actually answerable to someone other than their friends who are equally stupid.

 kodos wrote:
WM/H became with MK3 what 40k was at the end of 7th

don't know who thought it was a good idea to copy&paste the worst of GW to become as popular (could be the designers or the community)

Weirdly one of the most complained-about things about the Mk3 launch was the removal of all the theme forces ("alternate detachments", "formations") that characterized the end of 7th. GW's been taking a lot more from Warmachine than Warmachine ever took back from 40k.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
You'll probably find some of the Infinity minis are old line miniatures that have been replaced or not even valid in the game any more (some Combined Army options for example). I'm not sure if CB asks for the miniatures back once they get superseded (or stores aren't able to do this) as I've noticed a lot of FLGS have that kind of stuff in their bargain bins.

This is the reason I asked. Most mini companies will lets FLGSs discount their models if the rules they put in with them become obsolete or get a resculpt. Both Infinity and Malifaux have had new editions in the last few years. Framing them allowing FLGSs to discount the minis because they're obsolete as the games being unpopular or inferior to 40k is disingenuous.

Except WmH. That game is actually dead.

Yeah, plus, depending on what they are, they might actually be chase. If someone's got a box of the old CA X-Drones in there it's worth MONEY.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 kodos wrote:
WM/H became with MK3 what 40k was at the end of 7th

don't know who thought it was a good idea to copy&paste the worst of GW to become as popular (could be the designers or the community)

I've heard a lot of rumours about the PP upper management basically being a bunch of egotistical babies who don't like being told they're ideas aren't the best ever. That isn't a dig at Jason Soles' haircut. Mostly. GW is at least publically owned so they're actually answerable to someone other than their friends who are equally stupid.

Jason Soles might have been the most sane of the bunch (despite his choice of hairstyle), he just really wanted the setting to be a horror game with deprotagonized human factions and that just doesn't work for a miniatures game with multiple factions you play.

Matt Wilson, so the rumors go, really didn't give a toss about miniature gaming, and wanted to break into Hollywood, so was living in LA trying to do that (and failing miserably), but insisted that all major decisions go through him, which made the company incredibly inefficient and the guy calling the shots was out of touch because he wasn't even there.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Except WmH. That game is actually dead.

What happened to WmH?

Mark 2 seemed really popular but then Mark 3 appeared to just collapse overnight.

Basically what was quoted above.
Themes, CID and axing the Press Ganger system were the big hits IMO.

Theme became monolists. You had to buy three copies of a monopose unit that PP overcharged for as well as 3 solos and you basically couldn't use any of these models in any other list in the faction. Its like if GW announced that for 10th Edition your Space Marine army could only take all Devestators or all Tacticals or all Intercessors and if you do you 500pts free to spend on more of the same marines and they get some extra universal rules. You don't HAVE to take those but then you don't get the extra 500pts and extra rules.

The CID was a mess. They'd only do one faction at a time so everything was uneven and they did them at a very slow place. They often straight up ignored feedback (which was often dubious at best in fairness) and ended up doing whatever they wanted anyway. For a game where learning the opponents rules is fairly important having them all constantly in flux was a pain.

Killing Press Gangers basically killed any incentive people had to run tournaments or intro games so the presence at FLGSs basically dried up.

Except no, MKIII is probably the best version the game has ever been with a few key exceptions* i have been getting in more games of WM/H is the last year than i have in the past 3 before that
I have a thread in their forum section on dakka where i post multiple battle reports nearly every week.

here are the problems

*
1 the players (most, not all) who started with MK I & II are the hardcore competition players and are effectively a toxic community that chases new players away from the game (one of the reasons i avoided the game until MK III)

2. loss of the press gangers was something that killed promotion and support for the game at a local level but it was legally forced onto PP so it wasn't something they could have avoided

3.WM/H exploded as an alternate game when 40k was in the gutter because of how bad 6th edition was doing. it was around at the right time to take advantage of the situation

4.distribution issues-this started pre-covid and only got worse. it is a tiny company and with the owners looking to retire and sell in recent years it really has become a major issue. i fortunately live like an hour away from the headquarters of the company so getting product is not an issue here.

5.CID and theme lists. yes, it took too long to finish CID and that caused some problems but overall, it has improved the game now that it is basically done. on the matter of theme lists and the steamroller (tournament) game types-that is entirely a problem because of point 1. you do not need to do either to have a fun and engaging game. nobody in our active group uses either of these things and i think that is a reason why the game is so much more fun.


This of course has nothing to do worth where GW is at now. people may still be buying plastic crack from GW but i hardly ever see people playing 9th at the FLGS. the players that do are probably off getting leg humped to buy more by GW staff up the road at the GW store a few miles away.

Did I say the game was bad? And again asking a community that focussed heavily on the competitive side of the game to not play theme lists is much the same as saying "just get a new group". Except with an even smaller community. Which is besides the point because axing the Press Ganger system and enforcing themes killed the entire community across the whole country. So you know, theres that small issue.

 vipoid wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Except WmH. That game is actually dead.

What happened to WmH?

Mark 2 seemed really popular but then Mark 3 appeared to just collapse overnight.

Absurd barriers of entry: atrocious prices, rules bloat, communities being adamant that big point tournament games are the only games to be played. Players leaving (which is always normal) were not replaced by new ones. Greedy PP added to it by making their product as inaccesible as it gets.

WM actualy enjoys a very minor reviwal with the new, small points format, Brawlmachine, becoming popular. Still an extremely niche, but VERY good game, several lengths ahead of WH40K.

For details check the Privateer Press section of Dakka and "the state of Warmahordes" discussion.

Thanks for the replies regarding WmH, all. Very insightful.

Cyel wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Except WmH. That game is actually dead.

What happened to WmH?

Mark 2 seemed really popular but then Mark 3 appeared to just collapse overnight.

Absurd barriers of entry: atrocious prices, rules bloat, communities being adamant that big point tournament games are the only games to be played. Players leaving (which is always normal) were not replaced by new ones. Greedy PP added to it by making their product as inaccesible as it gets.

You just described the current issue with the competitive community. I've been trying to push for a 1,000 pont Tourney circuit, since it's a valid format for competitive, it's just as valid as 2k games, but the community does nothing but rip the idea to shreds.

I enjoyed low point games of ninth Ed sans cp and stratagems etc. I watched a lot of 2000 pt games with all the bells and whistles. Did not see the attraction. Getting people to change anything is difficult… I certainly applaud the effort. Makes sense to me. Low pt games are more fun imho. Plus people complain about time, trying to get more games in and so on… smaller games solves those problems.

Communities will play the games they want to play the way they want to play them, assuming of course they find like-minded folks. Its that whole freedom thing.

Our group has five 40K tourneys a year. One of them is at 1000 points and is aimed at new players. We can fit four games in a day and it is also a spur for folks to build a new army. On the other hand, Incursion missions are like a knife-fight in a phone booth. They can also be quite unbalanced/swingy - I find 1500 is the sweet spot for a three-round event. Still, a change of pace can be fun. Maybe try to run an Incursion tourney and see what happens?

Whatever format we go with, though, our 40K tourneys sell out in hours. Flames of War and Bolt Action can get half the numbers once or twice a year (I used to TO the Flames games and we relied on out of town folks to to get to get there). Haven't seen a Warmachine tourney round these parts since 2017. All that to say, our own 40K tourney ecosystem is doing just fine.

 Blndmage wrote:

Cyel wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Except WmH. That game is actually dead.

What happened to WmH?

Mark 2 seemed really popular but then Mark 3 appeared to just collapse overnight.

Absurd barriers of entry: atrocious prices, rules bloat, communities being adamant that big point tournament games are the only games to be played. Players leaving (which is always normal) were not replaced by new ones. Greedy PP added to it by making their product as inaccesible as it gets.

You just described the current issue with the competitive community. I've been trying to push for a 1,000 pont Tourney circuit, since it's a valid format for competitive, it's just as valid as 2k games, but the community does nothing but rip the idea to shreds.

To be fair 1000 points is a very different game than 2000 points, by a large margin, and competitively lists are extremely different than 2000 ones so those people who can fairly play competitive 2000 points game might have to get a lot of new stuff to play 1000 points at the same level of competitiveness and it might be a barrier to invest in some models just to play a format that isn't the most common one. Many players also don't like the very small tables.

Try the 1500 points format instead, which is my favorite choice. It's not really different than 2000, also in terms of listbuilding, but with less overcrowded tables.

One 'issue' I can imagine with smaller games, aside from getting less stuff and the smaller tables, is with the Command Point system where many armies will feel like they have barely any to feed some units. Of course, that would make things less extreme in some regards, but at the same time, it means that only a rare few stratagems would still see use.

 Dolnikan wrote:
One 'issue' I can imagine with smaller games, aside from getting less stuff and the smaller tables, is with the Command Point system where many armies will feel like they have barely any to feed some units. Of course, that would make things less extreme in some regards, but at the same time, it means that only a rare few stratagems would still see use.

Oh no.
How terrible.

You know, looking back at this if i could actually give a better answer of "What should 40k be" I would say it SHOULD be this.

"A gaming system designed to reenact both thematic and dramatic battles of the 41st millennia."

With the idea being the game is not meant to be competitive, but rather narrative and filled with dramatic over the top battles with less focus on winning and loosing and more focus on narrative outcomes of games and thematic outcoms of games. To quote one of the old guard i used t play with who was in the hobby since basically day one, "Oh i dont care about what wins and what looses, i just care about what i think would end up looking cool if it were in a book or a movie." and this was the mantra i tried to follow, so every opportunity to had to take a challenge it was taken, any time i could do death or glory, it was go time.

If i could say what 40k should be, it should be that, and balanced around that idea of having those types of engagements, and units should be balanced around that in mind, no around the idea of tournament pushing and metas.

Backspacehacker exalted! could not agree more.

the lore/setting is the entire reason i still play 40K

RT was a parody of fantasy, 2nd was hero hammer skirmish. the hard setting of 40K solidified in 3rd and became all that we now understand of the grim dark setting of 40K. after Rick, Andy and the rest of the original team left nobody currently at GW understands what 40K is anymore.

They know what 40k is now, a money machine .

In short: I do not care if 40k is balanced for tournament play. My main priority is that it's *fun* to play across all skill levels.

In many ways, I feel like 40k has lost its most 'Fun' mechanics since when I started playing (at the start of 5th). I'm an Ork player at my core, and so the game came baked in with many options that were *suboptimal* but which were intensely fun to use. Shokk Attack Guns and template weapons and random psychic powers and armor facings - None of these made for well balanced tournament play, but they were extremely fun to use. The awesome feeling of deleting a whole squad of terminators versus the hilarity of accidentally teleporting into melee combat with them balanced out the general weakness of the gun.
On the other hand, vehicle damage rules never felt *fun* to me. The wide gulf in durability wasn't appropriate for every army, so while a Trukk blowing up in one unlucky shot might have been appropriate, a Rhino or a Leman Russ doing the same was not. I miss armor facings, but I don't miss vehicle rules in the slightest. Also, while unique rules or abilities for certain models was often fun, it also often led to wildly overpowered abilities, like Blood Angels dreadnoughts being able to shred entire hords in a single melee combat.

9th has taken some steps in the right direction. Waaagh! returning to an activated ability is great, because it's so much more *fun* to call a Waaagh! than to just have an Aura. The core 9th rules strike a good balance between streamlining and rewarding cohesive armies (unlike the Loyal 32/Detachment Spam of 8th, which never felt *fun*,) but if codex balance is better than it used to be, its only by a narrow margin (ignoring the outlier of Late 7th). The lack of USRs and the 'My special rules beat your special rules' edge cases are awkward and inconsistent.

I'm reasonably happy with 9th. The core rules are solid. I'd like to bring back more of the 'fun' rules that made older editions feel more narrative, but it's a tough line to walk between fair, streamlined rules and novel unique situations. My personal preference would be to lean more towards the fun, chaotic side, but I'm fine with the current state of the game.

Waaaghpower wrote:
In short: I do not care if 40k is balanced for tournament play. My main priority is that it's *fun* to play across all skill levels.

I agree, but "fun" also includes a minimum level of balance. I want thematic rules and variety between and within armies and I want armies built to represent a faction's fluff to also be strong on the tabletop. But I also don't want to see a thematic and background-accurate IG army get tabled every single game because no matter how fluffy and cool your list is, your army is useless on the battlefield. IME nothing is more demoralising for a new player than having to explain to them that the cool, well-painted new unit they just spent hours building and painting is terrible in the game. Worse still is having to explain that their entire army is terrible and will likely remain so for a long time.

Yes, there are ways to mitigate against this, but it's also not great to see players having to handicap themselves because their opponent has a terrible army, and many players don't want their opponents to do so either. It's also more difficult to self-balance the less experienced you are.

Wouldn't being balanced for tournament play make it balanced for everything else?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Wouldn't being balanced for tournament play make it balanced for everything else?

Define 'balanced for tournament play'? What does it look like in the real world.

Do you mean something like 'every codex should have one good power build' = balanced for tournament play?

Theres the 'how'. What costs and sacrifices are you willing to make? Will you homogenise a lot of options? Reduce the rosters? Decimate the strategems? Reduce the scale? Reduce the scope? Allow sideboards/multiple lists/multiple win conditions? Give everyone a plasma gun and a power weapon?

So, What does it look like in the real world?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Wouldn't being balanced for tournament play make it balanced for everything else?

Yes... But

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Wouldn't being balanced for tournament play make it balanced for everything else?

Depends what you mean by balance. From a competitive perspective every Codex would be balanced if there was at least one build that was at the same level of power as every other Codex. That doesn't mean that's the sort of balance that would appeal to non-competitive players.

For example, Craftworld Eldar have often been very powerful in competitive tournaments (not right now, but in the past it held true). Usually they achieved this power through skewed and unfluffy armies like 7 planes, jetbike spam, Wraith-construct spam, etc. This meant the average Eldar player's army was usually somewhere between OK and weak because a traditional army of Guardians, Aspects and some vehicles wasn't very good. My version of balanced would make the background-accurate lists the more powerful ones so people collecting a "normal" army for each faction would be on a level playing field.

Deadnight wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Wouldn't being balanced for tournament play make it balanced for everything else?

Define 'balanced for tournament play'? What does it look like in the real world.

Do you mean something like 'every codex should have one good power build' = balanced for tournament play?

Theres the 'how'. What costs and sacrifices are you willing to make? Will you homogenise a lot of options? Reduce the rosters? Decimate the strategems? Reduce the scale? Reduce the scope? Allow sideboards/multiple lists/multiple win conditions? Give everyone a plasma gun and a power weapon?

So, What does it look like in the real world?

Exactly. Balanced for tournament play doens't really mean anything. To me the definition of reasonable balance in 40k is when two players field average collections of models from different factions and have similar chances to win, assuming same luck and same experience/skills. For average collections of models I mean basically "highlander" oriented armies, with a bit of everything rather than spamming stuff. When that works reasonably I'm happy.

I couldn't care less if any faction has a spammy but equally powerful build that makes tournaments extremely balanced.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Wouldn't being balanced for tournament play make it balanced for everything else?

In my experience tournament players are perfectly happy to buy new armies every six months and don't particularly care if three quarters of the models in their Codex are garbage, so long as a large number of Codexes have at least one tournament-competitive netlist in them at any one time they interpret the game as "balanced".

Slipspace wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Wouldn't being balanced for tournament play make it balanced for everything else?

Depends what you mean by balance. From a competitive perspective every Codex would be balanced if there was at least one build that was at the same level of power as every other Codex. That doesn't mean that's the sort of balance that would appeal to non-competitive players.

That's just not true, internal balance is part of competitive balance.

My version of balanced would make the background-accurate lists the more powerful ones so people collecting a "normal" army for each faction would be on a level playing field.

What background? The one that says that the Emperor was saved by a man or the one that says the Emperor was saved by an immortal? Some people will fight you if you try to tell them that their skew list is unfluffy or that your highlander list lacks theme.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Wouldn't being balanced for tournament play make it balanced for everything else?

In my experience tournament players are perfectly happy to buy new armies every six months and don't particularly care if three quarters of the models in their Codex are garbage, so long as a large number of Codexes have at least one tournament-competitive netlist in them at any one time they interpret the game as "balanced".

Do you know what they are comparing with? A quarter of factions having one viable list each and the top faction having 2 builds and all the other factions having no viable builds. Casual players are happy if they have no competitive builds, because they can get their opponents to come down to their level.

Casual players are happy if they have no competitive builds, because they can get their opponents to come down to their level.

Not over in the US in my experience with the game over several regions.

Getting players to come down requires those players to have a large enough collection to do so.

The good majority of tournament players I have ever known keep their collections tight to whatever is competitive and ebay the rest to recoup costs and invest in the next churn build.

The biggest complaint I ever heard about toning down was from a large number of american players that simply only had one army - the competitive army.

Toning down was not something they were interested in doing because many people don't want to buy models just to tone down their army with.

I know there are people that WILL tone down but in the states its very difficult to find those players - at least in public stores where a lot of us go to get games.

 vict0988 wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Wouldn't being balanced for tournament play make it balanced for everything else?

Depends what you mean by balance. From a competitive perspective every Codex would be balanced if there was at least one build that was at the same level of power as every other Codex. That doesn't mean that's the sort of balance that would appeal to non-competitive players.

That's just not true, internal balance is part of competitive balance.

I disagree. If you're talking about competitive play I think defining balance as every Codex having at least one build that is equal to the most powerful build from any other Codex is accurate. From a purely competitive angle, as long as a Codex has one good build that's fine. I didn't say it was desirable or optimal.

 vict0988 wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
My version of balanced would make the background-accurate lists the more powerful ones so people collecting a "normal" army for each faction would be on a level playing field.

What background? The one that says that the Emperor was saved by a man or the one that says the Emperor was saved by an immortal? Some people will fight you if you try to tell them that their skew list is unfluffy or that your highlander list lacks theme.

The background GW chooses. It's their game, and they should be writing each Codex with a view to what typical armies of that faction should look like and balancing appropriately. People can try to justify any list, skew or otherwise, as fluffy all they like, doesn't mean I or GW have to agree with them. I'm not even suggesting banning skew lists completely, just not making them the optimal choice, by design.