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.

@ Akar: Thanks for the detailed perspective. Interesting to see it through the eyes of someone who has a similar history of engagement but a different experience. Just a few things I wanted to respond to:

 Akar wrote:


In addition to that, these events had ripped the heart out of 7th by restricting rules that opened up the game. First Allies, then soup style lists, eventually limiting players back down to single codex if non-imperial. This continued through to 9th with the Rule of 3 taking us back to 3rd/4th by creating a more Std. FOC like arena.

9th has dialed it back certainly- army purity rules + detachment CP costs really di hurt soup; it must be acknowledged that there is a chance this was done in response to the widespread soup outrage that happened in 8th, which really was the golden age for allies- they were encouraged not just to provide multifaction synergies and exploit unintended interactions, they also REWARDED CP for additional detachments.

Rule of 3 only exists in matched play- because so much of your post relates to tournament issues, it's clear that this is your preferred method of play, so I get it... But I still thought it was worth it to point this out.

 Akar wrote:

I agree with most people that the biggest downfall of 7th was the introduction of 'Formations' (or whatever they're called). I'm going to be fair here, since I don't believe that the concept was bad, just implementing them without a points cost associated with them. We still have Formations in 9th that are Matched Play legal in the Charadon books, but there appears to be some progress by giving them a cost, at least in the case of admech. The issue I have with them, is we're again back to specialized lists that are only allowed in the rules.

The thinking was that detachments are a hybrid between formations and the FOC; essentially formations gave you special rules; in 8th, detachments gave you the CP to use strats, so they became your formation-equivalent by providing access to special rules based on army construction, while maintaining the feel of an FOC by making their restrictions based on unit TYPE rather than specific units. Once they decoupled CP from detachments in 9th, they diminished the likeness to formations, so that in the current game, detachments are almost pure FOC's... though having more than one available is nice for fielding themed armies and for narratives that call for atypical forces.

The stuff that I've seen in the campaign books is really optional; I think GW wanted that, because they took a lot of heat for DLC with the Psychic Awakening content, which for many armies was absolutely necessary to combat the egregious imbalance created by Marines 2.0. Many on Dakka still call it DLC; I think their primary complaints are actually with the supplements included in the campaign books, rather than the armies of renown. I never bought the Vigilus books, so I can't compare the Charadon stuff to those books, but certainly when I compare them to PA, the Charadon content seems to come closer to the mark of "Optional Content."

It is also worth pointing out that unlike formations, Armies of Renown are framed as key players in a given campaign, locked to a particular conflict in a particular region of space at a particular time just like all the other Charadon content. As such, it was made to be restricted to battles that are a part of the campaign. People on Dakka don't seem to get this, but it is a key element of the design.

Currently, the Be'lakor datacard and the supplements are the only thing in either of the Charadon Books that is true DLC meant to be used outside of the campaign; even the Disciples of Be'Lakor army of renown is connected specifically to the Campaign.

 Akar wrote:

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

I think your first sentence in this paragraph should be "The situation wasn't any better during 8th" - sorry to get nitpicky, but the way it's written makes it sound like the problem you describe is specifically the fault of GW and the edition alone... But the actual problem is the disconnect between support ORGS and GW.

Netlisting is a player issue- neither NOVA, nor the ITC, nor GW have anything to do with it. As a Beardy Grognard from a different generation, the idea of downloading a list from some supposed know it all/ net personality/ influencer is utterly alien to me; I remember fondly the days when star players weren't really a thing and doing things for yourself was understood to be a part of the hobby. The shift here is generational and cultural, and I think anything the ORGS do is reactive rather than steering. For example, GW does now regularly feature Metawatch articles by supposed star players, but I don't think they're doing it to create and perpetuate a star player cult; I think they're reacting to the hipsters who don't think anything is worth doing unless somebody who is supposedly important tells them to do it over the Internet.

Now I don't think your post was actually written with the intent to assign specific blame- you're just describing the situation as you see it and letting the chips fall where they may, and regardless of who is at fault, the problems you describe are legit, particularly from your point of view. As a non-competitive player, I can't write intelligently about the tournament scene, but it was my understanding that most of the people playing in ITC events liked the sytstem: if they didn't, why would they play it, when they could just play Maelstrom with their peers at home or in stores?

 Akar wrote:

9th edition is where the final pile of dirt was added to the grave and the tombstone erected on 'Competitive 40k'. There hasn't been a 40k tournament where players simply played the missions in the book.

So again, not a tournament guy. But it was my understanding that most if not all tournaments use the GT Missions right out of the GT Mission Pack as is for 9th ed. So I'm not sure what you mean, unless I've misunderstood what the GT Mission Pack is and how it works.

 Akar wrote:

Several great mechanics are now lost under the lies that they somehow weren't 'competitive'. After 3 editions of destroying competitive mechanics to move the game forward, they finally managed to get their rules into the game, leaving us with a mission and system that is barely playable, let alone competitive.

For the competitive part, I have to yield to your superior knowledge of the tournament scene, because I have no experience with it or interest in it. But as for the "Playable" part- I like the idea of secondaries, which in Crusade become Agendas. I like them because they allow players some control over the mission and because they are another way for the design team to express the character and flavour of a faction through the bespoke options. Now this easier with say with Agendas, because they don't actually affect your odds of winning- they are merely used to determine how many experience points should be granted to particular units. If I played matched, and winning or losing was directly connected to secondaries, my opinion might be different. I don't, so it isn't.

 Akar wrote:

This thread, (and the other one similar to this), show that there are more players unhappy with this edition more than any other edition that I've seen.

It absolutely, categorically does not prove anything of the sort. It merely proves that the majority of Dakkanauts are unhappy.

But not all players are Dakkanauts- not even close. Also, not all Dakkanauts are even players. Which means that it proves nothing of value.

 Akar wrote:

There are quite a few of us who are sitting on armies that were previously considered competitive, simply not included in 'Matched Play'.

True, but no more or less so than with any edition except the first, which is why edition churn is the biggest enemy of the game, and not the rules of any given edition itself.

 Akar wrote:

There are players sitting in a void who don't fit into the 'Narrative' mission set, and have no place in 'Competitive Matched Play'.

I think there are currently 90 Crusade Missions with another 24 on the way when the Octarius Crusade Mission pack drops. Crusade offers battle honours which can be used to strengthen under-performing units. There are even some options which approach the restricted equipment lists that tend to be among the biggest complaints about 9th made by Dakka. If you can't make your army fit into Crusade, it probably means you're trying to play Renegades and Heretics, Elysians or Corsairs. If you're playing one of those two armies, my condolences- there's nothing anyone can say that will make you feel better. I am hopeful that these armies will return in some way shape or form, but even that won't make you feel better because the wait is going to suck and there's no guarantee that they'll that they'll get it right if it's coming at all.

 Akar wrote:

There are groups going back to earlier editions, or adapting earlier editions missions into 9th, just so that they have something to do while waiting. Others have simply left.

The folks who are playing old versions or adapting missions from old versions are those who still embody that old DIY spirit I talked about earlier. As for those who left, sales numbers seem to indicate that for everyone leaving, two more are getting on board. Sales numbers, like Dakka posts, are not a 100% accurate picture of what's actually happening, but they may be the most accurate tool anyone has to measure the state and health of the game. Unfortunately ONLY GW has that information, and they aren't going to release the full details to anyone.

 Akar wrote:

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

Maelstrom of War Missions were redone for 9th in White Dwarf. I don't remember enough of the details to talk about whether they were as good as the ones in any of the other editions but they do exist. I don't remember the issue number. Only tournament players can comment on whether they feel the rules in tournaments are functional, so I can't comment on that. I don't know what's coming for Chapter Approved... They don't seem to be the old mixed bag annuals that we used to get- they are now mostly mission packs; I don't suspect there will be another GT pack this year. The Tactical Terrain pack was CA, so theoretically there might be an unforseen pack on the way- like a CA City Fight pack for example, but who can say?

As for the notion of 10th, as I mentioned earlier, I personally feel that all edition changes are bad, because they all mean reinventing the wheel which means they all stop development to rerelease everything that's already been released 9 times instead of doing anything new. It will also recreate the have new codex vs have not new codex situation that is currently one of the biggest issues facing the game.

As someone who played since 3ed, seems like end of 7th was a turning point for the better.

Shocked? Most people hated the end of 7th due to all the expansions as well as Ynnari. But consider, that was when they published this massive, comprehensive FAQ. They had been shoddy with FAQs for several editions, this was the first time they went out of their way to take ownership of the games state in quite awhile (arguably not since end of 3ed trial rules). Also worth mentioning every faction (or most) ended up getting some love by all the books that came out then. Not perfect mind, not balanced of course, but not mind numbing 8+ years between rules for Orks and DE.

Its gotten better since then. Not perfect, mind you. A lot better though. Regular FAQs? Now we complain they take a month, it was years in some cases, if ever. Missions designed for tournament play, in a handy book with other rules you need? Yeah this second outing was a mistep, but its still a far cry from the support before. And its not just us tourney players getting support, multiple Crusade expansions, campaign books, etc.

The premise of the thread though is the bean counters are to blame. I want to posit another possibility. Someone with more business, marketing and product sense took over and forced the rules devs out of the fiefdom and out to engage their customers. Improve the quality of their product and fix mistakes rather than gaslight us into thinking its our fault. I don't miss that at all...still some of that going on from time to time (old habits die hard), but still better now that they at least take some ownership.

Does come with a cost though and we see it now in how they have treated FLGS and started to draw lines in the sand because of Warhammer+. Not going to defend those actions, but product-wise as a direct consumer it is better quality and better supported. Period.

 winterman wrote:
...Improve the quality of their product and fix mistakes rather than gaslight us into thinking its our fault...

I'm sort of baffled by this sentence. I've never felt like GW has attempted to gaslight me into believing the state of the game is my fault; I've always felt like the game comes broken and if I want to have any fun I need to fiddle with it myself. The difference to me between 3rd-7th and 8th-9th is now other players are trying to gaslight me into believing that me not having fun is my own fault, whether it's the endless refrain of "well, if you bought a different army it'd be the best edition ever!" or Jake giving me the "well, if you'd just play Crusade..." lecture.

Even with FAQs the game feels at least as broken to me now as it did in 6th, the difference is that the community is actively trying to convince me I should join the cult of GW and give up trying to fix anything myself now. (I'm being hyperbolic, I don't think you've literally been brainwashed by the cult of GW, I'm just at a loss to explain how my experience of the game is so completely different from the people who do like 9th that I can't think of another way to describe it.)

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I'm sort of baffled by this sentence. I've never felt like GW has attempted to gaslight me into believing the state of the game is my fault

Yeah. We've got people here at Dakka who do that for them, but I've never seen GW say or even imply that except for one instance where they called players who used screening* "unscrupulous", even though it was something they encouraged (the Guard 'Dex at the time even had examples of how to screen). But beyond that, yeah, never got the impression that they were blaming the players for the game's faults.



*In the 3rd Ed sense, models blocked LOS, allowing you to block shots to units behind other units.

I am unsure...

See, i did initially start out with orks and later CSM...

Both dexes suffered quite heavily in 4th and 5th... So whilest 4th and 5th were core rulewise solid and highpoints of the game, personal experience with those armies was just miserable.. especially when you didn't want to field the meta builds.. like biker nobs and slaanesh whip tripple tripplets obliterators... (and i say this as someone that actually liked obliterators from a lore and game standpoint)

6th gave us with IA13 R&H. Which allowed for an actual Chaos army to be played and not just Marines -1 + spikes. So i had a better experience than many going forth into 7th and initially 7th was good fun aswell. Albeit the core rules did suffer.
7th though also introduced a modern monetisation scheme and the DLC-ification of the game with special rules releases... and got progressively worse. I stopped somehwere in the middle to end.. then got lured back in with GWpromising to improve in 8th... only to a game which has lost a lot of core rules, somehow bloated excessively and have the one saving grace i had during terrible GW times for the game being stripped, removed and now taken behind the shed.

for me, i guess that means, that GW never really improved.Out of a custommer perspective.

I dunno, I loved the 4e Ork Codex. I wish it had been released earlier in the edition though! It was miles better than the 3e codex that preceded it.

 Da Boss wrote:
I dunno, I loved the 4e Ork Codex. I wish it had been released earlier in the edition though! It was miles better than the 3e codex that preceded it.

That is our preferred Ork codex for our hybrid 5th ed games.

 Akar wrote:


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

There were tournaments were everywhere in 5th edition 40k. 'ITC' didn't exist yet, because Reece, Frankie and the rest of Zero Comp crew were still playing in them. (I know, I was there...) Heck, go back and look at the Tournament Discussion threads here in DakkaDakka back in 5th edition from 2008-2012. There were tournaments all over the place including GW GT's. Do you not remember the fiasco of the GW tournament circuit for the 'Golden Tickets' to play at the invitational in Vegas? (Which ended up being open to even those who didn't win a Golden Ticket, because GW had space to fill to cover their costs.)

To your point about 7th edition, my biggest gripe with it are indeed the formations. I know people who play 30k who absolutely love 7th edition, because it avoids all of that.

Not Online!!! wrote:
I am unsure...

See, i did initially start out with orks and later CSM...

Both dexes suffered quite heavily in 4th and 5th... So whilest 4th and 5th were core rulewise solid and highpoints of the game, personal experience with those armies was just miserable.. especially when you didn't want to field the meta builds.. like biker nobs and slaanesh whip tripple tripplets obliterators... (and i say this as someone that actually liked obliterators from a lore and game standpoint)

6th gave us with IA13 R&H. Which allowed for an actual Chaos army to be played and not just Marines -1 + spikes. So i had a better experience than many going forth into 7th and initially 7th was good fun aswell. Albeit the core rules did suffer.
7th though also introduced a modern monetisation scheme and the DLC-ification of the game with special rules releases... and got progressively worse. I stopped somehwere in the middle to end.. then got lured back in with GWpromising to improve in 8th... only to a game which has lost a lot of core rules, somehow bloated excessively and have the one saving grace i had during terrible GW times for the game being stripped, removed and now taken behind the shed.

for me, i guess that means, that GW never really improved.Out of a custommer perspective.

I know what you mean, actually. Even if an edition had excellent rules, a poor or outdated codex could really sour them.

For example, I liked many aspects of the 3rd and 4th edition rules but playing them at low point levels with the 3rd edition Necron codex was a decidedly miserable experience. At 500pts, for example, I could have 20 Warriors and a Necron Lord with 40pts of Wargear. That was my only option for a list. And this would be against my opponent's Chaos army, which could take some cheap troops and a tooled-up Daemon Prince. The latter shrugged off my pathetic bolter shots and could basically defeat my entire army by itself, even without the support of its troops. It did not make for fun games.

Cut to 7th and while I despised many aspects of the core rules, I had immense fun towards the end of the edition thanks entirely to the revised Corsair rules. Up until then, playing my Dark Eldar had been a tedious experience as their codex felt like it had been written for a completely different edition. Possibly a completely different game. Their anti-tank was garbage, their poison weapons were either ineffective or plain didn't work on the targets I needed them for, and they felt so outclassed that my only option was to spam the few least-worst units, with no spare points for fun or flavourful choices. In contrast, Corsairs felt like Dark Eldar: Good Version. Suddenly, I had a customisable HQ with some fantastically fun and flavourful options and abilities. My units actually felt agile on the battlefield. My anti-tank actually worked. And this was without making use of D-weapons or anything like that. Even just sticking to the more average options, it still represented a vastly improved experience.

I bring this up because I think it does represent a very important point in that, for me at least, the state of my codex is probably more important to me than the state of the core rules. It's certainly not an exaggeration to say that I'd prefer to play 7th edition with the Corsair book than 8th or 9th with the snorefest that is the DE book.

The quality of your codex is definitely an important factor in how fun a particular edition was. That's why for me the "downward spiral" began at the end of 4th edition, with the release of the 4th edition CSM codex (which was essentially an early 5th edition codex), which sucked all of the fun and flavor out of the faction. Two codexes later, and we still haven't fully recovered.

 winterman wrote:


Its gotten better since then. Not perfect, mind you. A lot better though. Regular FAQs? Now we complain they take a month, it was years in some cases, if ever. Missions designed for tournament play, in a handy book with other rules you need? Yeah this second outing was a mistep, but its still a far cry from the support before. And its not just us tourney players getting support, multiple Crusade expansions, campaign books, etc.

Okey, but those things have an impact only on players that did play in those editions. If someone started to play in 8th or 9th. What do they gain from the fact that they get told that once things were much worse? Plus GW support is super wonky. Yes they FAQ and errata stuff, for books they put out. If you don't happen to get a book, you can be stuck in limbo of bad rules for years. You can be stuck in a limbo of good rules to, but that is gamble thing you have no impact on.

Some with the new non core game stuff. With matched play being the most common way to play, being told that maybe their faction is broken or bad there, but okey in crusade, doesn't help much, if crusade isn't played as often as matched play. May as well tell people having a bad time playing tau, to play kill team or something similar.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
The quality of your codex is definitely an important factor in how fun a particular edition was. That's why for me the "downward spiral" began at the end of 4th edition, with the release of the 4th edition CSM codex (which was essentially an early 5th edition codex), which sucked all of the fun and flavor out of the faction. Two codexes later, and we still haven't fully recovered.

That's especially true if you played through multiple editions and had codex quality that swung wildly. any chaos player who started with 3.5 has never felt justice since. or how i felt when the 4th ed dark angels codex murdered my chapter as the first of the new direction of toned down/simple rules design direction that lasted for 3 codexes before they tossed out that plan.(that and it invalidated entire army lists that were hard requirements in the previous book, suddenly you had $$$ spent on models you could no longer legally use).

Getting constant FAQs/erratta may seem like an improvement except when it is just repainting the sinking ship (bad core rules mechanics).

The big thing i see when it comes to codex VS edition you have something mostly solid like 5th that only had a couple serious issues like wound allocation in the core rules while you had better codexes for certain factions that were better before and did not translate well with a re-write for the new edition. keeping in mind some of these codexes existed across multiple editions before getting an update.

It is a reason why most of the oldhammer versions of the game give the players the ability to use the preferred codex that best fits the feel of the army within the framework of the rules the version of the game is based on.

I have yet to see a chaos player want to use anything other than the 3.5 codex. and there is actually much love for other 3rd and 4th ed codexes to be used or were actually used part way in to 5th edition when it was the "current edition".

Karol wrote:
Okey, but those things have an impact only on players that did play in those editions. If someone started to play in 8th or 9th. What do they gain from the fact that they get told that once things were much worse?

A flutter of hope that their experiences are indefinitely better than those of the past.

Plus GW support is super wonky. Yes they FAQ and errata stuff, for books they put out. If you don't happen to get a book, you can be stuck in limbo of bad rules for years. You can be stuck in a limbo of good rules to, but that is gamble thing you have no impact on.

Why would GW release an FAQ or an Errata for a book that hasn't been released. That makes no sense. A Beta Codex like SoB in CA 2018(?) maybe but FAQ's and Errata's are to fix issues identified within a specific book.
As for being stuck with bad rules for years, it's primarily up to the individual can choose to rectify this issue through many means. CSM were garbage in 6th and 7th so instead, I played Guard and fixed my problem until Daemonkin came out then I started playing CSM again.

Yeah the flutter of hope lasts for about two years or two full FAQ/CA cycles. After that people either quit, or realise that GW only does fix changes when they bring out a new book.

If the ix to a problem, created by a company that is unwilling to fix it, is that you have to buy a new army, then we are trying to skim dangerous ground of argumentation. GW is responsible for the products they make. They can't say for 40 years, upps we didn't expect that, and just buy more stuff, maybe the next army you buy will not be bad.

 Gert wrote:

Karol wrote:
Okey, but those things have an impact only on players that did play in those editions. If someone started to play in 8th or 9th. What do they gain from the fact that they get told that once things were much worse?

A flutter of hope that their experiences are indefinitely better than those of the past....

So...you're saying that for people who aren't having fun with the current state of 40k "cheer up, it used to be worse!" is supposed to make them, what, feel better about not having fun?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gert wrote:
...

Plus GW support is super wonky. Yes they FAQ and errata stuff, for books they put out. If you don't happen to get a book, you can be stuck in limbo of bad rules for years. You can be stuck in a limbo of good rules to, but that is gamble thing you have no impact on.

Why would GW release an FAQ or an Errata for a book that hasn't been released. That makes no sense. A Beta Codex like SoB in CA 2018(?) maybe but FAQ's and Errata's are to fix issues identified within a specific book.
As for being stuck with bad rules for years, it's primarily up to the individual can choose to rectify this issue through many means. CSM were garbage in 6th and 7th so instead, I played Guard and fixed my problem until Daemonkin came out then I started playing CSM again.

So...the free PDF with the stopgap updates for the SM books at the start of 9th, including complete profiles for some units, were...what, a figment of our imagination?

 AnomanderRake wrote:
So...the free PDF with the stopgap updates for the SM books at the start of 9th, including complete profiles for some units, were...what, a figment of our imagination?

\What stop gap? Marines had their 2.0 books and then had their books updated en mass at the very start of 9th. And what ever good or bad, their state is hard to compare to something like the tau or gsc. And GW even knows it is late with their updates, they say stuff like all marines will have 2W, and here we are a year in to 9th, and no one at the studio is able to write a PDF with all csm, havocks, raptors etc have 2W. It just takes too much time and is too hard to pull off for a small company like GW. But spliting contet from a codex in to two books, that they seem to be able to do just fine. It is a miracle in a way.

Karol wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
So...the free PDF with the stopgap updates for the SM books at the start of 9th, including complete profiles for some units, were...what, a figment of our imagination?

\What stop gap? Marines had their 2.0 books and then had their books updated en mass at the very start of 9th. And what ever good or bad, their state is hard to compare to something like the tau or gsc. And GW even knows it is late with their updates, they say stuff like all marines will have 2W, and here we are a year in to 9th, and no one at the studio is able to write a PDF with all csm, havocks, raptors etc have 2W. It just takes too much time and is too hard to pull off for a small company like GW. But spliting contet from a codex in to two books, that they seem to be able to do just fine. It is a miracle in a way.

You might not have seen it because the GK got skipped. They wrote a PDF that gave Deathwatch models their 2W for the, like, month they didn't have their supplement and didn't technically have any way of using their unique models that weren't in the core 9e Codex. That's the proof that GW could write a PDF with updated statlines for CSM stuff and chooses not to.

GW could write a PDF with updated statlines for CSM stuff and chooses not to

Nothing new there. took them what 2 years to give the dark angels an errata for their storm shields after they upgraded everybody elses to a 3++

 aphyon wrote:

there is actually much love for other 3rd and 4th ed codexes to be used or were actually used part way in to 5th edition when it was the "current edition".

This is true. The two armies I enjoyed the most in 5th were Blood Angels and Eldar. Eldar never got a codex in 5th and didn't really fit the meta, but I had a lot of fun with them - on foot.

Blood Angels got the infamous White Dwarf codex at the tail end of 4th. Most veterans felt it to be a grave insult to the chapter, but it was the codex that got me started with BA. Because it was free. I read it first in WD split across two issues, but GW released it as a free pdf as well. Reading it inspired me to start the army. It wasn't as competitive in 5th as the vanilla dex or wolves, but I had fun with it and felt it had a lot of character (death company, Furioso dreads, veterans, honor guard etc). Once the actual 5th edition book (of bloody blood blood) came out in the spring of 2010 and the army became super popular with the folks who had been playing blue, green, and then blue-gray marines, I switched focus to the Eldar and Nids. The book was a big jump in power, but my hipster side didn't like playing mirror matches.

Yeah but as it was with 3rd and 4th ed codexes the eldar codex (i still use and own the 4th ed dex) was so full of flavor. you could build and play a viable list for every craftworld the way they should fight in the lore.

Band wagon jumpers when it comes to net listers and comp players has always been a thing, it is just more glaring now that GW is catering to them.

I mean i played salamanders since 5th and i never used vulkan he'ston in my army (but always bre'arth because dreadnoughts ) when they "got good" then got "not good" between 5th and 9th i never changed armies.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

You might not have seen it because the GK got skipped. They wrote a PDF that gave Deathwatch models their 2W for the, like, month they didn't have their supplement and didn't technically have any way of using their unique models that weren't in the core 9e Codex. That's the proof that GW could write a PDF with updated statlines for CSM stuff and chooses not to.

okey, but this means it is even worse. GW doesn't suddenly wake up to find a baby basket with a print out of a new codex, they know stuff they are going to put out years in advance. Which means they knew that armies like csm or GK etc are not going to be updated for a long time, and armies like loyalist marines will be updated in the next 2-3 months, and yet they still decided that they should be getting an update. It feels like me sister getting presents on her birthdays and my birthdays, and me not getting anything, "because I am too old for it" we are not even 2 years age difference.

Karol wrote:
It feels like me sister getting presents on her birthdays and my birthdays, and me not getting anything, "because I am too old for it" we are not even 2 years age difference.

Virtual hug.

Not that I imagine your parents give the slightest crap what some random dude on the internet says (not do I know their finances), but I'm 43 and still get birthday and christmas presents. I still get them for my parents too. It's not a kid thing. It's a family thing.

3rd edition took 40k from what was a warband level game in 2nd edition into a platoon level game.

3rd edition made 40k a good wargame, it could handle the scale well due to the abstractions made in the leap from 2nd to 3rd.

4th for me was the start of the demise, main thing was the changes made to rapid fire weapons. In 3rd edition the way they worked made the trade off between standing still & shooting, or moving very clear.

 Akar wrote:
There is no doubt in my mind though that 9th is by far the worst edition to ever be put to print.

Buuutttt... they did finally fix cover (Too bad the 'competitive' tourney cover set up is just dire and the biggest thing stopping me from ever wanting to play those games.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I wonder if the rot isn't due to Primaris and the jump to 2 wounds, then everything going up in defense and offense to vaguely balance out. My dice buckets have rarely been bigger!

Crispy78 wrote:

Karol wrote:
It feels like me sister getting presents on her birthdays and my birthdays, and me not getting anything, "because I am too old for it" we are not even 2 years age difference.

Virtual hug.

Not that I imagine your parents give the slightest crap what some random dude on the internet says (not do I know their finances), but I'm 43 and still get birthday and christmas presents. I still get them for my parents too. It's not a kid thing. It's a family thing.

Well I still get stuff. For example I have, and this I just can't explain. TWO start collecting lumineth lords. Both from my dads sisters. The first I got when they came out, so I at least know how she could have gotten her hands on that one, but how she got another box in june this year is beyond my understanding.

But even with it being okey to talk about the new codex, and me not liking the new one that much. I still think that 9th is a much better edition then 8th. Like miles high. I just wanted GK to have 4-5 months of good fun time. Instead we got a necron style codex, only with one instead of a bunch of models. Balanced books don't age well in w40k from what I have seen in 8th ed.

If you get an OP one, you can ride it out all edition. Eldar could do that practically the entire 8th ed. Even when marines drop with their 2.0 books, they were still okey to play. On the other hand something like DE or DG or CSM got the balanced booked treatment and it did not go well for them.

Agree with everyone on the stupidity of the statement "The first edition someone played will always be the one they think is best." My first edition was Rouge Trader. It was literally BARELY playable. More and more I am coming around to thinking 5th was maybe the best over-all, or possibly 8th pre-Marines 2.0.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I'm sort of baffled by this sentence. I've never felt like GW has attempted to gaslight me into believing the state of the game is my fault

Yeah. We've got people here at Dakka who do that for them, but I've never seen GW say or even imply that except for one instance where they called players who used screening* "unscrupulous", even though it was something they encouraged (the Guard 'Dex at the time even had examples of how to screen). But beyond that, yeah, never got the impression that they were blaming the players for the game's faults.



*In the 3rd Ed sense, models blocked LOS, allowing you to block shots to units behind other units.

The only things I can think of that even come close to GW blaming the players for the state of the game are a few one-off and kind of haughty quotes from a few designers over the years. Cavatore for example, going to, I think it was Adepticon in 8th, seeing how people were using flyers and jump infantry and scolding us all for playing the game that way. Which to me was a lot less about GW as an entity blaming us, and a lot more about the disconnect certain designers have with their own rules. Don't write 'em that way, and they won't be played that way. lol But yeah, I can't think of a time GW proper actually blamed the player base for the state of the game ...

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

Nah. This not the worst it's ever been. We still haven't reached 7th ed levels of dissatisfaction. I don't understand how your army doesn't "fit in matched play"? Are you saying it's been made illegal somehow? Like you have a KDK army or something like that? Regardless of what anyone thinks RE: balance in 9th - it's still nowhere near the IMBALANCE of 7th. There were armies in 7th where, if you yourself did not show up with one of "those" and you were facing "one of those" you were going to lose. Auto lose in fact. There would be nothing you could do. Absolutely nothing. Add to that the fact that bloat was so bad you needed even more rules sources on hand than you need in 8th/9th and the fact that games were taking forever - no. 7th was by far the edition most reviled. 9th might be getting close, but 7th nearly shut down the tournament scene in the U.S., was responsible for killing off three game stores in my area, cause many long running 40k podcasts to either shift to covering a different game or shut down entirely (RIP 11th Company), and at one point even turned Dakka into a bit of a ghost town i the 40k General Discussion area.

9th has a long way to go before we hit that point imo. My group is giving it a little break, but we plan on coming back to it at some point, and even with that said - if we were to go play today, I know I can bring my worst army to a game and still have a better chance at doing something than my BEST armies had in 7th.

Tycho wrote:

7th was by far the edition most reviled. 9th might be getting close, but 7th nearly shut down the tournament scene in the U.S., was responsible for killing off three game stores in my area, cause many long running 40k podcasts to either shift to covering a different game or shut down entirely (RIP 11th Company), and at one point even turned Dakka into a bit of a ghost town i the 40k General Discussion area.

I am glad I am not the only one who had a similar experience during 6th/7th.

We had tournaments where less than 10 people would show up on the weekends when we used to have 3x the number of players during 5th edition. At least 80% of the people I played games with in 5th edition had quit the game. And we lost three game stores during that time as well.

When they cut off 6th edition short I thought they would address some of the problems but instead they just added a bunch more I didn't even bother trying out 7th edition.

Not being able to assault out of transports (massive CC nerf to many armies), many armies not having access to anti-flyer guns without the Sky-Fire objective markers, formations, re-roll 2+ Invulnerable saves, summoning, invisibility, the list just goes on and on. The codex's almost didn't matter as the core rules were just so broken.

I'd like to add the introduction of knight-esque models to that list. They always felt out of place for me.

Knights, Wraithknights, that Tau one, Stompaz, ...

a_typical_hero wrote:
I'd like to add the introduction of knight-esque models to that list. They always felt out of place for me.

Knights, Wraithknights, that Tau one, Stompaz, ...

It is truly saying something about 7th that, while I agree the Knight Titans felt mildly out of place, they weren't even in the top 10 most OP things! lol

Tycho wrote:


It is truly saying something about 7th that, while I agree the Knight Titans felt mildly out of place, they weren't even in the top 10 most OP things! lol

That isn't even mentioning stuff being broken in the direction of useless. No one should forget entire codex's were designed around the Soul Fire special rule, the most worthless special rule I think to exist in 40k (or damn near close). And GW had the opportunity to fix it during the 6th-7th transition and chose not to.