Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

BrianDavion wrote:
personally I favor a happy medium of unifying those various USRs but putting them where approperate, on the datasheet for ease of referance. I hated the rule book flipping I needed for some units back in 7thg. it was REALLY annoying when you'd look up one USR and it simply said "gains these two USRs" and thus you where racing to check out the other 2 USRs.

This. USR in a book you otherwise don't need is horrible, but having all deep strikes, FNP, explosions, bodyguards and whatnot key-worded and read the same? Sign me up.

The_Grim_Angel wrote:
Maybe some players don't want be forced to quit a game due to its badly done rules. It is like have a gangrene to a leg: you can amputee that leg, if you don't have other choice, but you would prefer save that leg.
Projects like Prohammer or Oldhammer are the proof that more than some players have issue with the rules made by the GW and this can't be branded like simple troll's complaints.

It's not about absolutes though, that's the thing. It's not a case of 'you play this crap game' or gtfo. I mean, for the gangrene analogy people should also bear some of the responsibilities for their own health choices too - you know, eat healthily, don't smoke, watch how much you drink and all thst.

As you correctly point out, there are other projects out there. Heck, as a narrative player and enjoyer of game-building I take this as my default approach.

If there's better systems, use them. If you have better ideas bring them to the table. Then play them. Invest in, and develop the kind of community that will support this attitude. Biggest barrier if you ask me isn't Gw's shoddy rules. It's the community's insistence on adhering to and following said shoddy rules so slavishly and without question whilst doing nothing to help themselves. It's like a religion. Blind faith in a bitter, angry god but yet any dissent from unquestioning obedience is treated like unforgivable heresy. The cult of officieldom and it's blind adherence is the biggest issue in my mind.

Look, gw write barely functional rules, at best. The cold hard reality is that they won't change. Constantly repeating 'theres problems', whilst cathartic at first is a road to nowhere. Ok, theres problems. Fine. Now what? Personally I find a point is ofyen reached where someone just complaining about stuff constantly whilst doing nothing about it becomes as much of the problem themselves rather the victim. I mean, I'm a caring guy, but I only have so much sympathy for people whose problems are self inflicted or where they refuse to help themselves, repeat toxic or self destructive brhavious especially when the solutions are available and doable.

Take control of your own game.

The_Grim_Angel wrote:Continuing to say the people hate the game, if they try to highlight the issues they have with them is wrong. It is the opposite: they love the game, because if they don't, they would have quit time ago and if they were troll, they wouldn't be able to discuss politely; like instead they are doing.

If they love the game so much where is the positivity? Why aren't they helping themselves or even trying to acommodate the issues? All I see is complaints 'gw left jagged edges in the same' and fair point, but it's the players responsibility as well.when they take a dozen of those jagged edges and inflict them on their peers, whilst simultaneously trying to claim no responsibility for their actions.

Regarding what you say, what you describe right there is a toxic relationship. Imagige me approaching my wife like that, like a lot of gw 'fans' approach gw. 'i love you honey, I really do, bit I'm gonna spend all my time being furious with you, ridiculing everything about you, constantly dredging up every mistake and oversight from thr last twenty years, blaming you for everything that's wrong, tearing you down constantly and begrudging you even the slightest bit of praise or neutral commentary. I'll never be happy, I'm be er gonna do anything about it and it will always be your fault and your responsibility to fix'.

One evening of that and my lovely Scottish wife will have me in the ground, occupying several burial sites.

Deadnight wrote:

The_Grim_Angel wrote:
Maybe some players don't want be forced to quit a game due to its badly done rules. It is like have a gangrene to a leg: you can amputee that leg, if you don't have other choice, but you would prefer save that leg.
Projects like Prohammer or Oldhammer are the proof that more than some players have issue with the rules made by the GW and this can't be branded like simple troll's complaints.

It's not about absolutes though, that's the thing. It's not a case of 'you play this crap game' or gtfo. I mean, for the gangrene analogy people should also bear some of the responsibilities for their own health choices too - you know, eat healthily, don't smoke, watch how much you drink and all thst.

As you correctly point out, there are other projects out there. Heck, as a narrative player and enjoyer of game-building I take this as my default approach.

If there's better systems, use them. If you have better ideas bring them to the table. Then play them. Invest in, and develop the kind of community that will support this attitude. Biggest barrier if you ask me isn't Gw's shoddy rules. It's the community's insistence on adhering to and following said shoddy rules so slavishly and without question whilst doing nothing to help themselves. It's like a religion. Blind faith in a bitter, angry god but yet any dissent from unquestioning obedience is treated like unforgivable heresy. The cult of officieldom and it's blind adherence is the biggest issue in my mind.

Look, gw write barely functional rules, at best. The cold hard reality is that they won't change. Constantly repeating 'theres problems', whilst cathartic at first is a road to nowhere. Ok, theres problems. Fine. Now what? Personally I find a point is ofyen reached where someone just complaining about stuff constantly whilst doing nothing about it becomes as much of the problem themselves rather the victim.

Take control of your own game.

The_Grim_Angel wrote:Continuing to say the people hate the game, if they try to highlight the issues they have with them is wrong. It is the opposite: they love the game, because if they don't, they would have quit time ago and if they were troll, they wouldn't be able to discuss politely; like instead they are doing.

If they love the game so much where is the positivity? Why aren't they helping themselves or even trying to acommodate the issues? All I see is complaints 'gw left jagged edges in the same' and fair point, but it's the players responsibility as well.when they take a dozen of those jagged edges and inflict them on their peers, whilst simultaneously trying to claim no responsibility for their actions.

Regarding what you say, what you describe right there is a toxic relationship. Imagige me approaching my wife like that, like a lot of gw 'fans' approach gw. 'i love you honey, I really do, bit I'm gonna spend all my time being furious with you, ridiculing everything about you, constantly dredging up every mistake and oversight from thr last twenty years, blaming you for everything that's wrong, tearing you down constantly and begrudging you even the slightest bit of praise or neutral commentary. I'll never be happy, I'm be er gonna do anything about it and it will always be your fault and your responsibility to fix'.

One evening of that and my lovely Scottish wife will have me in the ground, occupying several burial sites.

The positivity is typically shared in person with friends.

On an internet forum, I'm going to generate discussion on what I think needs fixed in order to:
1) Spread ideas around. If the community as a whole is discussing an idea, GW is more likely to become aware of it - just like the FAQ agitation you see sometimes.
2) Discuss whether or not things are fine. If I am negative about something someone is positive about, that can cause me to change my opinion on things and realize that maybe what I was complaining about was silly.
3) Point out to others pitfalls to watchout for when playing their games.

It's worth noting that GW is a company, not a wife. I used my house analogy before, so I'll dredge it up again. A 40k army is like an ancestral home, in that it's got lots of temporal, emotional, and financial investment. If something is fucky, people are right to be upset, and the appropriate response isn't just "hur durr move out dingus"

Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Building a 40k army has lots of temporal, emotional, and finanical investment.

Saying "just don't play, durr" when someone has a problem with the direction the game is heading is unhelpful. It's like telling someone "just sell your house, durr" when they complain that their ancestral home has bad insulation or something.

However, also telling a player that maybe they should change the insulation (such as house-ruling) is often met with as vitriol as stop playing. There are a few Dakkanuats that would argue that the ancestral home should have had good insulation from the beginning. Games Workshops games have been pretty consistent in their quality, or lack of, for much of the decade or so I have been aware of them. While 8th and 9th are better for platoon/company sized games to 7th (which I think would be fine at more a squad level which all its micromanaging), it still pales to pretty much any other miniatures war game I have played.

Some people are older players than a decade (in a game nearly 35 years old now), and 5th wasn't that bad of an edition. House-ruling is of course met with as much vitriol as "stop playing" because it's effectively saying the same thing. Proposing gaming with house rules is essentially proposing not gaming at all, because people will refuse - or, alternatively, they'll try it once in a while. But you won't be able to find nearly as many games. Not even close. So it's basically just indistinguishable from "stop playing."

Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:And I am fine with that for the most part. I certainly understand what I am getting into playing it. For the most part 40k and AoS give the run-of-the-mill armies I and my opponents play a fighting chance to win. Sometimes that fighting chance is more uphill than other times. Other times it isn't there at all. Which is a shame and shouldn't be there. I am fortunate that I play with a group that if someone's army is taking a beating the rest of the group will try and figure out ways to make the next game more balanced. My Primaris space marine army was down to 15-20% less points, no supplements and sometimes no roll-off to determine who when first with my opponent deciding when I was playing the second 8th ed C:SM. If that didn't work, I could always play my Chaos Space Marine army. Or if an opponent really wanted 40k on easy mode, I could break out my GSC army which is a combination of poor rules, a weak model collection and me competing for the worst GSC player in the world title.

For people who are invested in their armies, it's not that easy. If I'm invested in my carnifex-spam Nids that functioned awesomely in 4th, and someone else is super invested in their Primaris Space Marine chapter that they recently fully painted and bought nameplates for the characters for... there shouldn't be a problem there. Neither person is "wrong". Whose fault is it when the Nid player gets irredeemably trounced by the SM player over and over and over and over again, until the SM player starts pulling their punches so the Nid player has a chance (which, by the way, feels awful for both players; the Nid player can tell the SM player is going easy on him, and the SM player oftentimes has to make unfluffy or tactically inane decisions in order to make the game function). That's GW's fault, and no one else's. The fact that you, personally, can play other armies doesn't mean that players who are invested in their current army should be forced to. Instead, the game should be actually good, at the price we pay for it.

"Go live in your summer home because your ancestral home has bad insulation" isn't actually a helpful response to people that only want to own one home, and should be able to do so if the home was built correctly in the first place.

Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:I am sure pretty much everyone gets that their ancestral home has bad installation and for almost everyone the only real installers are the same that put the original bad stuff in. It would take great effort and money to get better, out-of-town installers to replace it. Which really isn't feasible for most. At the same time, I don't think it is healthy to endless gripe every winter and every summer about how it is too cold and hot. Especially, since GW games aren't actual necessities and should be fun, and griping endlessly apparently hasn't affected any change. Nor does it look like it ever really will to a large degree. So the best I can tell you is put on an extra sweater in the winter and open up all the windows and get some fans for the summer if you can't move on or afford to get a new installation company in your home town.

I disagree with this 'inevitability' stuff. If you're suffering, you should agitate for change and always seek to make the situation better. You could take mitigating steps (e.g. wearing a sweater and adding fans) but you shouldn't stop agitating for things to improve. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy if you stop.

Just digging into a smaller part of the conversation, regarding house ruling.

I'm quite fortunate that I have a group that's willing, or even enthusiastic, about house ruling the 40K ruleset. Granted, 95% of the hard work of documenting our house rules falls on me, but I find that to be fun in its own right, so it is win-win.

After some time bemoaning the state of the game, we all just decided we liked things better back in 4th/5th era, albeit with some tweaking and refinements based on other editions. Lo and behold, we have a game system we all like a lot more and can get on with playing and enjoying ourselves.

Once you and a core group of fellow players step off the GW rat race, it's really quite liberating. No more pressure to "keep up" with the latest and greatest. If you all agree there are issued or problems with the rules or certain codex's, just make a collective decision to change it - and it it doesn't work out then change it back.

Obviously, if you're reliant on playing in GW stores or want to play in sanctioned events, it won't work as easily.

To points made above - don't wait for GW or someone else to "fix" it for you. If you can see the problems, discuss it with your group or player community and go for it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
...House-ruling is of course met with as much vitriol as "stop playing" because it's effectively saying the same thing. Proposing gaming with house rules is essentially proposing not gaming at all, because people will refuse - or, alternatively, they'll try it once in a while. But you won't be able to find nearly as many games. Not even close. So it's basically just indistinguishable from "stop playing."...

I disagree. I think it's a critical mass problem. The more people are on here or in game stores advocating for homebrew rules the more they'll get used and the more they'll get accepted. Some people refuse to play homebrewed material on principle, yeah, but way more don't because they expect that they won't get to play games. If enough of us start saying "go home 9th, we're playing our own rules" and the idea starts to gain traction it makes things better for everyone. GW can sell minis that are useless trash in 9th, people with squatted minis can still use them, people who don't want to deal with the hardcore competitive aspects of 9th have something else to do with their minis, and people who like 9th can just go keep playing 9th.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mezmorki wrote:
...Obviously, if you're reliant on playing in GW stores or want to play in sanctioned events, it won't work as easily...

Do note that this depends on your GW store. I've been in stores that were fine with us playing our own rules so long as everything was painted GW minis.

Lance845 wrote:The mechanics are the only issue. From the basic mechanics of the game with the IGOUGO turn structure, through the bloat, to the poor rules writing language, to the poor balancing, to the poorly implemented things like CP and strats. It's all mechanics. And they are all the problem.

I rather disagree. There is a lot in the base mechanics which is actually quite effective for the level of game that 40K seeks to achieve. This isn't to say there aren't problems, though.

Try Warmachine some time. It is manageable at 75 points where you're likely to have one super HQ running 3-5 machines or beasts with 2-3 units of about 10 models each being supported by about 3-4 characters. Its system takes as long to run at this level as a 1750-2000 point game of 40K (depending on Edition). This is because while there are unit activations, each model's interaction is usually still performed on a 1:1 basis. If I tried doing this game with the same number of models of a 40K tournament team, it starts approaching Apocalypse game time. It's still has the same turn concept as 40K, though.

Where GW's problem lies is always in rule implementation. Basic rules work, but when you start adding in everything extra, it really tears itself apart. Are they the best rules? No. However, no ruleset is ever going to be 100% perfect, so one has to make allowances for the chosen resources. A lot of people here prefer Bolt Action's system, while I'm a little more classic and prefer Battletech's turn system (which X-Wing resembles, if I understand it right), but I can understand why using a single D6 is preferable due to familiarity, availability, and fast rolling for units which is why 40K uses that.

Out of curiosity, what's the point size of an average Bolt Action game, and how many models does that usually include? Do you know? (I never see it played, so I don't know the expectations.)

personally I favor a happy medium of unifying those various USRs but putting them where approperate, on the datasheet for ease of referance. I hated the rule book flipping I needed for some units back in 7thg. it was REALLY annoying when you'd look up one USR and it simply said "gains these two USRs" and thus you where racing to check out the other 2 USRs.

If USRs were not in the rulebook, it would require copying and pasting them in to every unit's datasheet, exactly. This has not been proven to be a strong point of GW writing. The problem then comes in when they want to update the rule, so new codex is buffed/nerfed as a result until the FAQs roll out (if they even bother to do that right). That is one advantage of keeping these general rules all in one place.

That being said, I agree that GW's implementation is the sore spot. A unique rule that just offers a USR or multiple, is pointless when you can just list it. Even if it offers it under conditions also seems pointless. Also just having a USR just to have a USR also seems rather abusive. 5th Edition didn't have much, and 4th and 3rd had far fewer. 5ths was mostly okay in terms of size where there was enough to handle most of the work while also being small enough to have the one's for your army memorized after a few games.

But taking them out of the rulebook hasn't stopped all the rules from still showing up on the datasheets, which is where the rule bloat that is oft-mentioned is being applied.

 Charistoph wrote:
...Out of curiosity, what's the point size of an average Bolt Action game, and how many models does that usually include? Do you know? (I never see it played, so I don't know the expectations.)...

750-1,250 was fairly normal at my FLGS. Warlord's 1,000pt starter boxes are usually 1-2 vehicles, 2-3 weapon teams, and 30-50 infantry.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Some people are older players than a decade (in a game nearly 35 years old now), and 5th wasn't that bad of an edition. House-ruling is of course met with as much vitriol as "stop playing" because it's effectively saying the same thing. Proposing gaming with house rules is essentially proposing not gaming at all, because people will refuse - or, alternatively, they'll try it once in a while. But you won't be able to find nearly as many games. Not even close. So it's basically just indistinguishable from "stop playing."

Not using house rules is on the players shoulders and certainly not an 'of course' issue. If they absolutely can't work things out and require a 3rd party to officiate for them even when they know that officiating is currently, historically and likely always will be bad that's on them. If there isn't even that level of trust to not screw over an opponent then why would I want to even spend to time to play a game around said person.

Even when I played Bolt Action a lot, I used house rules setup by tournament players when I went to the F, not very L,GS . When I played in garages with my friend we also played a different set of house rules for it, and when I taught people how to play it I stuck with the RAW. Sure, it was a little confusing, but I think it enriched my enjoyment (or at very least my opponent's) having the house rules in place. If a person's house is cold in the winter and has bad insulation, but they can't afford to turn up the heat yet refuse to put on a sweater, blanket or layers because of course they shouldn't have to, that is on them. I mean how much sympathy should someone have for another that just keeps cursing the dark when it is at least possible to light a candle?

But yes, it is likely you are going to have a smaller number of games. Then it is a matter of how many mediocre games equal a good game to you. Unfortunately, life often doesn't offer up options where there aren't any downsides. More often than I would prefer life often present only options with no upsides just less downsides. It sucks I know.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
For people who are invested in their armies, it's not that easy. If I'm invested in my carnifex-spam Nids that functioned awesomely in 4th, and someone else is super invested in their Primaris Space Marine chapter that they recently fully painted and bought nameplates for the characters for... there shouldn't be a problem there. Neither person is "wrong". Whose fault is it when the Nid player gets irredeemably trounced by the SM player over and over and over and over again, until the SM player starts pulling their punches so the Nid player has a chance (which, by the way, feels awful for both players; the Nid player can tell the SM player is going easy on him, and the SM player oftentimes has to make unfluffy or tactically inane decisions in order to make the game function). That's GW's fault, and no one else's. The fact that you, personally, can play other armies doesn't mean that players who are invested in their current army should be forced to. Instead, the game should be actually good, at the price we pay for it.

I have 3 massive Dust Warfare/Battlefield armies, 5 Bolt Action Armies and 3 40k armies, 2 Age of Sigmar armies and more skirmish miniatures games than I want to list. Nearly all of it painted. Do you not think I know of the investment of time and money involved? Me not playing Dust is due to mishandling of the game when it was at Fantasy Flight as I liked Dust Warfare the most. I continued to play Dust Battlefield not because I liked the game, though it was functional, but because I had some sunk cost and I enjoyed most of my opponent's company playing the game. However, when the Kickstarter completely went belly up the game essentially died to me leaving with tons of lovingly painted models I put into storage and have even looked at since. Bolt Action was my area's tournament game of choice through the latter half of 7th ed 40k. Those days 40k players were minority to even 1970's miniatures historicals. Then 8th ed 40k happened and Bolt Action disappeared in stores. I managed to get through an Eastern Front campaign but never got the chance to run through a Pacific island hopping campaign. Time moves on. Not in ways we want it to more often than not. If you don't want to ever change your army play games with pre-setup armies such as historicals or maybe even 'dead' games. Certainly don't play current GW games where every six months there is probably going to be a shake up. I think that is supposed to be a feature not a bug.


Conversely, take matters into your own hands. One of my primary opponents for full 40k (all opponents in my Kill Team group have 'nids) is a Tyranid player. And they have and enjoy running a bunch of the big Forgeworld bugs in their army. The first full game of C:SM 2.0 with my Primaris was against his Tyranids. I wiped the floor with his army. So the next time we played I only had 1750 points, allowed him to setup the table anyway they wanted, choose the mission and gave him the option to chose who went first if he wanted it. Sadly, it still wasn't enough, and don't let him read this, but he is a much better 40k player than me.

We both knew the space marines were completely over-tuned while his Forgeworld nids were the opposite. I don't think my opponent felt bad as this wasn't so much a handicap as it was a localized rebalancing. When my GSC faced his Dark Angels I was tabled by turn 2. We never got a chance for a re-match but I certainly wouldn't feel bad asking for an extra 500 points and/or the option to bring back via reserves (but no Deep Strike) Troop units that had totally been wiped out. And that's just so I can offer him a shred of challenge as I might just be the worst GSC player on the west coast of the U.S.

Someone can say that handicap matches aren't fair, but since we mostly agree that 40k's balance is bad, is it really a handicap? I see it more about players taking control of balance issues and applying their knowledge of the game and each other to create a more satisfying outcome. Should players have to do this? Probably not, but I also don't see GW repairing their games to meet my level of satisfaction either even if they put forth all their effort. Less so, since 40k players have complained about this sort things for the decade that I have been interacting with them. I want games that come down to the wire and am less and less concerned if the points say the opposing armies are 'balanced' against each other. We all do know that is about as true as professional wresting being real, right?

Should the issue be brought up to GW? Absolutely. At the same time, I am guessing the rules designers don't visit Dakka Dakka all that often looking for ways to make things better. So a lot this just isn't help to fix the issue be it positive or negative feedback. So all it really does is allow a person to get these issues off their chest. Which is fine in moderation. I would argue that far too many Dakkanaunts go way too far. The point their goal is to sour the experience of 40k for others. I don't think that works though. When I find Dakka Dakka too negative I just stop visiting Dakka Dakka and continue with the hobby at other venues. I keep coming back because I am a little internet old-fashioned and like the forum approach to discussing things over how Twitter, Reddit, Facebook and Discord do things. Not to mention that I do appreciate that Dakka Dakka is a little freer than other social media sites.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I disagree with this 'inevitability' stuff. If you're suffering, you should agitate for change and always seek to make the situation better. You could take mitigating steps (e.g. wearing a sweater and adding fans) but you shouldn't stop agitating for things to improve. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy if you stop.

I think you have me all wrong. You should try to make the situation better. Just accomplish within your loci of control. It seems to me too many Dakkanauts are waiting on sudden fair, balanced degrees to come out of GW when that has basically never happened and has absolutely no indication that it ever will. Or maybe they think near endlessly complaining is going to turn things around. Unfortunately, I think complaining about these issues on Dakka Dakka accomplishes as much as jumping into the air gets someone closer to the Sun.

I'd say the issue isn't the current setup, it's rather the oversaturation of units. Let's look back at 3E, armies used to use a standard Force Organisation Chart (FOC). 1HQ, 2Troops, with up to 2 HQ, 6 Troops, 3 Fast Attack, 3 Elites, 3 Heavy Support. Transports were essentially just taken as upgrades to existing units. 1 unit = 1 choice, and armies could more or less be themed around the FOC... So a basic list was a Marine Captain and 2 Tactical Squads of 6 with 2 Razorbacks. Perhaps adding a squad of 5 Terminators and a Predator with a Whirlwind, and a 10 man Assault Squad.

Then the Imperial Guard came along with it's unique Platoon system... Suddenly you could take a HQ in a Command Squad which had a built-in Light tank (Chimera), up to 6 heavy weapon squads (in various flavors with a limit of 2 each), and a bonus Sentinel squadron... Troops had a similar situation with their Platoon Command Squad and between 2 and 5 Infantry Squads... At least back then S3 could not damage T6 at all so special and heavy weapons were needed. Eventually other armies started gaining vehicle squadrons, where originally they only had one, and power creep did the rest...

Now you have the current system where literally power creep has resulted in these massive 'All or Nothing' lists - where versatility just does not cut it anymore...

where versatility just does not cut it anymore

Slayer6

It doesn't cut it anymore because nothing has an assigned role anymore in the game. in the current game where everything can hurt everything you just spam the most shots that do the most damage. then buff it to death with strats.

My lists for 5th are always built with "well rounded" in mind half for shooting and half for close combat for units or gear, so i could take on a bit of everything without having to tailor a list for a specific enemy.

It is also why it was such a draw to play a unique army lists where you could tweek the FOC by playing something different like a bike army such as saim hann for eldar, white scars and ravenwing for marines etc.. but each played very differently even though they were all built around bikes.

Anyone who claims "everything can hurt everything" must not be playing the same game as I am. Just because your unit has a chance to plonk a wound off a tank doesn't mean that it's a good idea to do so.

The fact that it can negates the reason to have units with a dedicated anti-armor role. especially when the damage is now randomized.

When i play tested with primaris in early 8th before eradicators my rapid fire hellblasters literally killed everything with equal ease-multi-wound infantry, tanks, hordes etc...

The reality is that everything can hurt everything and massed attacks/fire + strats do the job just as well even with the restrictions put into 9th.

Previously if you ran say a X4 heavy bolter dev squad they had a job to do-deal with light vehicles and massed infantry(remembering that those editions had less overall shots making the heavy bolters rate of fire far more imposing) but they had a real problem dealing with high toughness monsters and literally could not hurt heavy armor...so you needed some other unit/option in the force to take on that role.

So you would see armies with a mix of units as Slayer6 gave examples of.

With the current edition i can spam 3 primaris unit types and a couple buffing characters and own anything my enemy puts on the table there is no need to diversify aside from aesthetics.

But the fact that bolters are killing elite stuff like termintors is a thing. Everything maybe an overstatment, but everything that is actualy being run in armies that are good very much kills a majority of stuff. And I don't think a base of snotling should have a chance to put wounds on a wright lord. In general if a units job in game is to do something more then be a meat shield and sit on objectives or buff other units, then it very much wounds more or less everything. there is something wrong with the game where anti tank weapons to be even close to the ability of str 5-6 multi shot weapons, have to become multi shot themselfs.

Hellblasters *are* a dedicated anti-tank unit though? And they also are expensive as sin, so you will struggle to get your points worth out of them if shoot them at light vehicles or infantry.

You could also make the same argument for rifleman dreads, hydras or psycannons in 5th. Those weapons could kill every unit in the game except for the mighty land-raider.

Just because you can hurt something, you are good at killing it. Heavy bolters still have a problem with dealing with armor or monsters, even after their buff to 2 damage.
If you have a squad of devastators with 5 heavy bolters and a vehicle or monster with T6+ and a 3+ save, you usually just get one or two wounds past their saves, hardly enough to shake something that had AV12 or more in 5th.
To kill a predator or a hive tyrant, you would be looking at something like 20 heavy bolters, which is 650 points worth of devastators. In 8th you needed twice as much.

If you want to kill tanks, you still need to bring anti-tank weapons. If you want to kill hordes, you need to bring something for that as well. And if you need to kill elite infantry, you have to bring something for that too. If spamming a single weapon type would be enough, I'm sure competitive lists would do so.

In the end, the game simply has changed. Instead of being unable to shoot small guns at hard targets, it's just very inefficient to do so. Just like shooting ork boyz with lascannons or plasma was inefficient in 5th.

Everything can hurt everything is a misconception.

A few mid strenght weapons that used to be completely uselsess against tanks are now pretty efficient against the same targets, that's true. Heavy bolters in the heavy doctrine are S5 AP-2 D2 which is enough to strip a few wounds off a target that used to be AV14. Now we also have re-rolls, stratagems and other buffs that could improve damage from these weapons. And armies like sisters can spam dozens of HBs while being perfectly TAC.

Dis cannons used to be completely useless against AV12+, now they have almost the same efficiency than dark lances against those targets, while being way more efficient than lances against infantries or elites. For drukhari there's really no reason to take lances over dis cannons.

So there are some weapons that can actually hurt everything, can be spammed and don't cost so much. But they are a few exceptions; lasguns, AP0 bolters or shootas still won't really do anything against a Land Raider.

Bolters against terminators are extremely inefficient now that they have 3W. That's a terrible example because bolters used to be good against termies in the previous editions when high rate of fire was always the best way to deal with 1W armored infantries with high invulns. I never fired rokkits against T4 1W 3++, I fired my sluggas and shootas trying to fish that single 1, saving rokkits to those things that didn't get a save against them like 3+ armor (no invlun) dudes or vehicles.

Hellblasters *are* a dedicated anti-tank unit though?

No they are not, notice i use the rapid fire rifles-they are anti-heavy infantry that also kill tanks as easy or did in 8th

And they also are expensive as sin, so you will struggle to get your points worth out of them if shoot them at light vehicles or infantry.

Irrelevant and spurious argument made by power gamers. earning points back is subjective at best. if they do the job i need them to do that's all that matters. and if they do almost EVERY job well, then it's one of those- no choice- choices.

You could also make the same argument for rifleman dreads, hydras or psycannons in 5th. Those weapons could kill every unit in the game except for the mighty land-raider.

Wrong
i love me the rifleman dread but a 2 shot per gun -even "twin linked" autocannon had very a very specific job. it helped against hoards in tandem with other weapons like the HB/AC pred but it's main job was using its high strength to wound mid level toughness things and kill AV 10 vehicles. shooting at terminators or any AV above 11 was almost a waste of time, unless you had nothing else to shoot it at, now in 8th it murders everything because of what i said previously-

If you have a squad of devastators with 5 heavy bolters and a vehicle or monster with T6+ and a 3+ save, you usually just get one or two wounds past their saves, hardly enough to shake something that had AV12 or more in 5th.

Well considering it's job in 5th was anti-light/medium infantry and it literally cannot hurt AV 12

To kill a predator or a hive tyrant, you would be looking at something like 20 heavy bolters, which is 650 points worth of devastators. In 8th you needed twice as much

1. can't hurt it from the front, bring a las cannon, missile launcher, multi-melta etc.. for that job, 2 tyrants used to have at most 5 wounds and a 2+ save. anti-tank guns reliably did 1 wound to them, volley fire weapons like when dealing with terminators are more likely to kill them outright from full health or to finish them off.

If you want to kill tanks, you still need to bring anti-tank weapons.

I have played 8th, you absolutely do not. AT weapons have high strength and sometimes longer range as their only benefit but the damage is random.
i have often used massed assault bolter fire (the baby heavy bolters) on inceptors and hellblasters to ruin things like riptides and tanks.

Much of that is due to the damage reduction system introduced in 8th. it's a terrible mechanic and i have always hated it, it was one of the reasons i didn't play fantasy. the less lethality/volume of fire, wounds and hard cover saves in previous editions are what balanced out the -have it/don't have it- armor save system.

If spamming a single weapon type would be enough, I'm sure competitive lists would do so.

I made that list and it would be 3 specific units, or something as silly as what i tried in 8th-
3 detachments with 3 venerable dreads(various loadouts) and 2 techmarines on bikes with conversion beamers each at 2K

it was stupid effective for a small elite army.

Bolters against terminators are extremely inefficient now that they have 3W. That's a terrible example because bolters used to be good against termies in the previous editions when high rate of fire was always the best way to deal with 1W armored infantries with high invulns. I never fired rokkits against T4 1W 3++, I fired my sluggas and shootas trying to fish that single 1, saving rokkits to those things that didn't get a save against them like 3+ armor (no invlun) dudes or vehicles.

Yep, the lowly las gun was the bane of my deathwing army back in 3rd-5th. i could make that 5+ save on the occasional las cannon but i would roll a ton of 1s on massed flashlights.

 Blackie wrote:


Bolters against terminators are extremely inefficient now that they have 3W. That's a terrible example because bolters used to be good against termies in the previous editions when high rate of fire was always the best way to deal with 1W armored infantries with high invulns. I never fired rokkits against T4 1W 3++, I fired my sluggas and shootas trying to fish that single 1, saving rokkits to those things that didn't get a save against them like 3+ armor (no invlun) dudes or vehicles.

Not all loyalist space marines and termintors got the +1W. And not all termintors had access to storm shields. But even those that had 1 stormshield for the entire army, only because in the past GW didn't make any SS models for them other then a special character, did get their rules nerfed multiple times over 8th and 9th as if the every termintor in the faction was running around with one.

A 5 men termintor unit shouldn't be losing 2 models just because 20 guants are shoting at them or because they got engaged in a firefight with a 5 man squad of autobolt rifle intercessors.

You mean not all termies got thier +2W. All termies are 2W at least, while they used to be 1W before 8th. That alone was a massive buff against bolters and their equivalents.

And even without a shield all termies got a 5++ which still has some impact against anti tank weapons with low rate of fire. Not to mention that 2+ save meant that against AP3 or worse weapons they got to roll their full 2+ even if they were targeted by proper anti tank weapons with S8-10 like rokkits. That's why low S low AP was the best option against termies, and that was indeed mitigated in 8th by doubling the wounds for ALL termies, and more so in 9th when termies of all flavors are starting to get their 3rd wound.

Karol wrote:

 Blackie wrote:


Bolters against terminators are extremely inefficient now that they have 3W. That's a terrible example because bolters used to be good against termies in the previous editions when high rate of fire was always the best way to deal with 1W armored infantries with high invulns. I never fired rokkits against T4 1W 3++, I fired my sluggas and shootas trying to fish that single 1, saving rokkits to those things that didn't get a save against them like 3+ armor (no invlun) dudes or vehicles.

Not all loyalist space marines and termintors got the +1W. And not all termintors had access to storm shields. But even those that had 1 stormshield for the entire army, only because in the past GW didn't make any SS models for them other then a special character, did get their rules nerfed multiple times over 8th and 9th as if the every termintor in the faction was running around with one.

A 5 men termintor unit shouldn't be losing 2 models just because 20 guants are shoting at them or because they got engaged in a firefight with a 5 man squad of autobolt rifle intercessors.

they don't YET but it's coming.

You know, if it is the same way GK had to wait for a rules fix, then 3 years wait for me comes under the don't have and not under the soon situation. Maybe it is an age thing, but to me the GW fix speed is on a geological time line.

Most the people I started with quit before their armies ever got good rule sets for example.

It's probably going to be two codices per month after all the marine supplements are done, you can calculate your worst case scenario from there.

 Blackie wrote:
You mean not all termies got thier +2W. All termies are 2W at least, while they used to be 1W before 8th. That alone was a massive buff against bolters and their equivalents.

And even without a shield all termies got a 5++ which still has some impact against anti tank weapons with low rate of fire. Not to mention that 2+ save meant that against AP3 or worse weapons they got to roll their full 2+ even if they were targeted by proper anti tank weapons with S8-10 like rokkits. That's why low S low AP was the best option against termies, and that was indeed mitigated in 8th by doubling the wounds for ALL termies, and more so in 9th when termies of all flavors are starting to get their 3rd wound.

Who uses low rate of fire or single shot anti tank weapons? I also really don't understand all the orc examples. Orc win by spaming units and sitting on objectives having close to zero interaction with their opponent and having a loaded dice to roll for who goes first. Who cares if their anti tank weapon hurts or doesn't hurt a termintor game wise. Because in the lore a group of 5 termintors should be able to stop a warband from advancing for multiple days, and a formation of 40+ termintors should waddle through whole ork warbands.

Plus the extra wound on termintors doesn't seem to be enough, as termintors were always in 8th as inferior versions of basic intercessors. And that is the better loyalist termis which do have access to Stormshields and are much cheaper. Through out all the 8th ed I did not feel as if small weapon fire, with all its extra AP etc, had problems in turning my 40+pts termintors in to something that dies like a tactical marine or a scout that costs in teens of points.

Karol wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
You mean not all termies got thier +2W. All termies are 2W at least, while they used to be 1W before 8th. That alone was a massive buff against bolters and their equivalents.

And even without a shield all termies got a 5++ which still has some impact against anti tank weapons with low rate of fire. Not to mention that 2+ save meant that against AP3 or worse weapons they got to roll their full 2+ even if they were targeted by proper anti tank weapons with S8-10 like rokkits. That's why low S low AP was the best option against termies, and that was indeed mitigated in 8th by doubling the wounds for ALL termies, and more so in 9th when termies of all flavors are starting to get their 3rd wound.

Who uses low rate of fire or single shot anti tank weapons? I also really don't understand all the orc examples. Orc win by spaming units and sitting on objectives having close to zero interaction with their opponent and having a loaded dice to roll for who goes first. Who cares if their anti tank weapon hurts or doesn't hurt a termintor game wise. Because in the lore a group of 5 termintors should be able to stop a warband from advancing for multiple days, and a formation of 40+ termintors should waddle through whole ork warbands.

Plus the extra wound on termintors doesn't seem to be enough, as termintors were always in 8th as inferior versions of basic intercessors. And that is the better loyalist termis which do have access to Stormshields and are much cheaper. Through out all the 8th ed I did not feel as if small weapon fire, with all its extra AP etc, had problems in turning my 40+pts termintors in to something that dies like a tactical marine or a scout that costs in teens of points.

what are mek guns?
what are meltas?
Terminators don't actually die to regular bolter fire (4 0 1), they die to the intercessor bolters (4 -2 2).

And feth the lore. 5 termies shouldnt be able to solo an entire ork army just because of the bolterporn going on in the books.

Part of it is that armies can't really address each other in ways that don't involve removing models from the board. Especially when that's kind of the thing for armies like Tyranids...

One of the fundamental problems suffered by 40k is that it is at its heart a game where players purchase, build, and very slowly paint extremely expensive, massively detailed plastic models.

And the storyline surrounding that game almost exclusively consists of stories of how one particular faction that happens to have the least detailed, cheapest, fastest to paint models can best all the other factions outnumbered 100-to-1.

You can either have a game that functions as a game, where the former factions can stand a chance against the latter faction only spending 3x-4x as much money and time on their models, or you can have a game that functions according to the lore, where players are presented with the "choice" to "either" play as the conquering heroes of the setting or to spend 10-15x as much time and effort painting up a horde of faceless NPC goons with no individual character to be slaughtered.

Personally, I'm just glad that Imperial Knights exist as a faction so everyone who plays space marines can "enjoy" being the horde of goons running to the slaughter.

Nurglitch wrote:
Part of it is that armies can't really address each other in ways that don't involve removing models from the board. Especially when that's kind of the thing for armies like Tyranids...

agreed 100%, after starting infinity i realised how lackluster 40k in terms of strategy. Pretty much everything resolves around : kill your opponent.
Just having the option to put down smokes on the battlefield to restrict line of sight or being able to go into supression mode would be a huge improvement for 40k imo.

I agree with the OP about his 3rd point. Guns vs melee equation in real world isn't - I shoot at you with one burst and then you are on me with a sword. That is what Napoleonic wars were like even in that scenario every unit on the field had a freaking gun. Anyways - units move speed has been inflated to insane levels to keep melee viable. The issue is it's overpowering shooting at this point and not by a little - by a lot.

Can walk through walls - but can't shoot through them. Units taking fire - their movement isn't hindered in any way. You get bonus move for making a charge? Forced to fight every battle like the siege of berlin? Only way to score objectives is to overrun in melee? Melee stops units from shooting but the units that just flew across the table swinging giant axes - they are ready for another round of melee before I get to shoot again. Like...can we stop with this? Melee's issue has always been that it's weapons cost too much. However now with the ability to start the game in melee practically - they clearly cost too little.

 Xenomancers wrote:
I agree with the OP about his 3rd point. Guns vs melee equation in real world isn't - I shoot at you with one burst and then you are on me with a sword. That is what Napoleonic wars were like even in that scenario every unit on the field had a freaking gun. Anyways - units move speed has been inflated to insane levels to keep melee viable. The issue is it's overpowering shooting at this point and not by a little - by a lot.

Can walk through walls - but can't shoot through them. Units taking fire - their movement isn't hindered in any way. You get bonus move for making a charge? Forced to fight every battle like the siege of berlin? Only way to score objectives is to overrun in melee? Melee stops units from shooting but the units that just flew across the table swinging giant axes - they are ready for another round of melee before I get to shoot again. Like...can we stop with this? Melee's issue has always been that it's weapons cost too much. However now with the ability to start the game in melee practically - they clearly cost too little.

Screens and desperate breakout really slow down melee.

Nurglitch wrote:
Part of it is that armies can't really address each other in ways that don't involve removing models from the board. Especially when that's kind of the thing for armies like Tyranids...

Huh? how else should combatants address each other?

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:
Part of it is that armies can't really address each other in ways that don't involve removing models from the board. Especially when that's kind of the thing for armies like Tyranids...

agreed 100%, after starting infinity i realised how lackluster 40k in terms of strategy. Pretty much everything resolves around : kill your opponent.
Just having the option to put down smokes on the battlefield to restrict line of sight or being able to go into supression mode would be a huge improvement for 40k imo.

Yeah, incidentally that is what I hate about Knights. You can slow them down, and maybe reduce their speed and WS/BS slightly, but you're not going to be able to remove firepower like you can with infantry, and they're such a big lump of points you lose a lot of the granularity of the infantry-based game. Like, if you could shoot weapons off them, or even force them to make fall back moves, or basically do anything interesting with them except hope to kill them first.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:
Part of it is that armies can't really address each other in ways that don't involve removing models from the board. Especially when that's kind of the thing for armies like Tyranids...

Huh? how else should combatants address each other?

Suppression, intimidation, outflanking, misdirection, logistical interdiction, exhaustion...