Switch Theme:

Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in es
[DCM]
Secret Inquisitorial Eldar Xenexecutor






your mind

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 vipoid wrote:
What about auras? Particularly the common ones like reroll 1s to hit? Do you think they can be made into universal rules? (Personally, I'd much prefer to just scrap the damn things but it seems GW is still in love with them.)
Every day I've been thinking about 40k rules issues whilst out walking (most people listen to music - I rewrite rules! ).
Spoiler:

So far I've got a spreadsheet where I've just written down every idea that's popped into my head. I'm almost at 200 lines, some being just names of rules, some being more detailed.

For example, "Insane Durability (X) - Reduces all Damage suffered by the value in the parentheses (to a min of 1?)", and "Unnatural Toughness (X) - Cannot be wounded by a result higher/lower than the value in parentheses". Stuff like that.

When it comes to Auras I want granularity, uniformity, and stratification. Auras right now as they are do not scale, in the sense that any aura is an aura. This means that rules can treat auras in a different way, when really they shouldn't. This becomes especially apparent when you have something that shuts down an Aura, but does that make sense? Some Auras come from psychic abilities, others from technology. Why should they all be treated the same? By the same token, there should be commonality.

For that reason I would divide Auras into 4 groups - Command Auras (eg. a Captain Auras), Psychic Auras (eg. Psychic Fortress), Technological Auras (eg. Kustom Force Field) and the fourth one is "Fear Auras" but in truth I haven't thought that one though. This would allow for simple rules interactions allowing for scalable and specific abilities (ie. some Necron ability that shuts down Technological Auras, or a Cullexus that shuts down Psychic Auras). And with the inclusion of USRs, you could do something, for example, with a Space Marine Captain:

Command Aura (6) - Keen Tactician

So it's a Command Aura, as defined in the rules as applying to units with the 'Core' Keyword, has a radius of 6", and when looking up the Keen Tactician USR, you find it is "Provides re-rolls of 1's To Hit".
Spoiler:

Again, just pulling it (and specific names) out of almost nothing, but that's the way I'd put it.

 Blackie wrote:
They could simply write all the USR a unit has in its datasheet, in full.
That would defeat the purpose of USRs. The whole point is to compress the rules by reducing instances of the same rule being repeated over and over. Having a central source - hence UNIVERSAL special rules - in each 'Dex would mostly achieve this goal.



Love it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Eldarsif wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Having a USR of 'Skilled Bolter Dude' for Rubrics and Marines means I have to look up the rule and its boring. Malicious volleys just makes it feel different and I think that matters to a lot of WH players. Same with 'Ardent Automata' instead of 'Steadfast' or 'Immune to Morale'.

Same thing with a Tellyporta. It just says so much more about the narrative of Orks than 'Deepstrike'.


I do agree with this now that you mention it. Disgustingly resilient gets a lot more ominous and fun when people talk about it instead of some "Hard Resist" ability. In that way the new format is much more meaningful and fun lorewise.


But how is this lost with usr treatments of these abilities? Call it what characterises the faction, add stories for why and how things work for them, but understand that this is not proprietary. Other units can eg deep strike. Maybe they do it differently, with blinding flashes or thunderous chants, but tabletop implications are the same or similar enough to fall under a usr.

Why anyone would want to compare a war game with a card game is beyond me but I always despised mtg and most other CCGs. I am in this hobby, for reasons, and not swapping cards over twenty minute card games so why would I be interested in reproducing the mtg experience in my wargame? Rhetorical question.


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

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

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


Counterpoint from my own experiance: This is no different to any other edition, and I came in at 2007 so I have about 13-14 years of experiance and all that time the players have been no different. You netlist the same 25% of units and get told your using the wrong minis for wanting to actually enjoy the game for its lore or want a bit more variety in the lists. The playerbase has always been this toxic.

The main difference is that in 8th-9th it's a lot more transparent. Every competitive list revolves around these main factors:

- Getting the auras
- Getting The strats
- Getting the Keywords
- Getting the subfaction
Combo it all together

For what purpose? Making sure your list has as close as possible to get probability to 0% on the rolling the dice to either A) Auto-Delete units or B) Survive whats coming while you squat on an objective. At this point the competitive playebase needs to concede the fact that they're not really wanting to roll dice, they just want to get rid of that time-wasting element so they can just get on winning in their turn of the game.

That's competitive 40k in a nutshell in 9th.

For the OP: I've just had my second game of 9th a few days ago after taking a gaming break mid-8th. My Necrons Vs. DG. 1250pts. Oppnent brought Morty...

I won the game 48-38VP and I really enjoy the fact that I played to the objective and won because of that felt gratifying, espcially with a unit I could not deal with at that low of points, but I can tell you right now that I can fully sympathise with the micro-management as there's a lot more than before, espically with Stratagems. I felt as though I was shuffling a card deck than pushing models around. I will be trying 9th again as I had enjoyed the core mechasnics and enjoyed the mission I was playing

My Best Advice? You got two solutions as long as your with people who want to play the game with a similar mindset to you. 1) Play the game with a ban on stratagems. Just get rid of them and you'll find the game plays a lot, lot smoother or 2) Play OnePageRules GrimDark Future. Its fast-paced, little to no micromanagement and you can still play with the same units/models, they will just have slightly different names. Oh, and the rules are free too if your just looking for a standard game.

I played 9th a few times and didn’t use that nast and sure, outside a few awful things that still keep me from investing in books for this edition for example, it was enjoyable to learn the new system… using also very small point level forces on a large table with lots of terrain and banning named characters yada.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/09/20 20:41:02


   
Made in gb
Sagitarius with a Big F'in Gun





North-East UK

 jeff white wrote:

My Best Advice? You got two solutions as long as your with people who want to play the game with a similar mindset to you. 1) Play the game with a ban on stratagems. Just get rid of them and you'll find the game plays a lot, lot smoother or 2) Play OnePageRules GrimDark Future. Its fast-paced, little to no micromanagement and you can still play with the same units/models, they will just have slightly different names. Oh, and the rules are free too if your just looking for a standard game.

I played 9th a few times and didn’t use that nast and sure, outside a few awful things that still keep me from investing in books for this edition for example, it was enjoyable to learn the new system… using also very small point level forces on a large table with lots of terrain and banning named characters yada.


I get ya! Something that I've noticed when I was playing 8th, wasn't the use, nor the volume of strats I was encountering but the timing of when to play those strats that were taxing on the mind.

The penny dropped for me when I was playting my Night Lords frequently and the "In Mindight clad" stratagem had to be played. That strat only activates when an enemy unit is targetted. Now on paper it sounds easy and simple. On the table however when folks are not used to facing NL it would be taxing as I had to eyeball my oppponent when they came to designating an enemy unit for a ranged attacked as I would have to quickly imnterject, tell them to hold as I play that strat, which is an incredibly small window otherwise the opponent would roll the to hit roll and then we play the good 'ol back and forth of "but I've rolled the dice now".

Now times that by all the strats you play and this I feel is where the crux of the argument that's taken 6-8 pages is at its climax. Everyone seems to agree that the USR's have just shifted into Strats and other areas in the codex but for most everyone can handle model datasheets, WT, Sub-Faction rules, etc.

It's the strats people have an issue with mostly. It's the fact you have to eyeball a 3 hour game for triggers to set your starts off in every individual game, not just in your turn but also in your opponents turn which is incredible taxing in a UGOIGO System. When confrnted witha USR all you had to do was ask about about it and if you had enough experiance/memorising skill, it would stick. Strats are a lot harder to keep a track of because they change each individual game depending on multiple variables (Enemy army, Terrain, mission, etc).

The Timing is what is taxing.

If I were to try and fix the start mess I wpould do either of the following:

1) Just get rid of them. You have the core rules, the codex and the subfaction (maybe FW) and that's all that's needed. It means less rules that you need to remember and rehearse and it also means you need less micro managemnt and more reliance on baord presence, your units and positioning. The game becomes more accessible to both the newcomer and the established gamer, however as many point out, strats are a thing and people grasp onto them so clutch like an very, very unhealthy addiction to certain things so this isn't likely to happen.

2) Keep the main starts in the core book (but get rid of the Morale one. Let the morale phase have an impact on the game so people have to take time to play that phase). When it comes to sub-factions, you should have a strat for one generic for the codex. One for non-named character but for any warlord in their respective sub-faction and one for every special character specific to them. These strats should only be given to Warlords so you can't spam multiple strats in a phase/turn. This then brings back the original concept of the Stratagem where it's meant to be a turning point of the game as there will be less available but something there to give flavour, like how the intent was obviously pilfered to be more accessible/flexible Feats in Warmachine/Hordes.

This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2021/09/20 22:23:14


Black Templars: WIP
Night Lords (30/40k): WIP
Red Corsairs: WIP
Iron Warriors: WIP
Orks: 6000pts
Batman Miniatures Game: Mr.Freeze, Joker
Ever wanted a better 5th ed. 40k? Take a look at 5th ed. Reforged! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/794253.page 
   
Made in es
[DCM]
Secret Inquisitorial Eldar Xenexecutor






your mind

Plus, not serious about mastering this edition, but with others who are and have, the game seems like it can easily become one of trap the noob. As you say, the situational character of stratagems means that one can set up the situation for a less astute opponent to fall into, whereas if I am not so well studied, I get trapped with the gotcha whombocombos… ouch.

   
Made in gb
Sagitarius with a Big F'in Gun





North-East UK

Yeah, Gotcha moments have been prevalent within 40k for every edition biut Strats have only amplified and made this issue the most transparent imo, because they are triggers. It might work in a CCG/TCG environment but on a tabletop game where there is considerable more time investment, all it really does is sour the mood and makes a bad atmosphere.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/20 22:22:13


Black Templars: WIP
Night Lords (30/40k): WIP
Red Corsairs: WIP
Iron Warriors: WIP
Orks: 6000pts
Batman Miniatures Game: Mr.Freeze, Joker
Ever wanted a better 5th ed. 40k? Take a look at 5th ed. Reforged! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/794253.page 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




 Blackie wrote:

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


Every unit is playable. That's a meaningless statement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 The Warp Forge wrote:
Yeah, Gotcha moments have been prevalent within 40k for every edition biut Strats have only amplified and made this issue the most transparent imo, because they are triggers. It might work in a CCG/TCG environment but on a tabletop game where there is considerable more time investment, all it really does is sour the mood and makes a bad atmosphere.


Well, there are miniature games designed around this idea (ASOIAF, for example) but 40k really isn't.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/20 23:20:50


 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut



Bamberg / Erlangen

Hecaton wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
We disagree about internal balancing in 9th edition. I think that 90%+ of the units in 9th codexes are at least playable.
Every unit is playable. That's a meaningless statement.
Nah, you are just being needlessly semantic here. In the spirit of the topic being discussed, Blackie obviously meant that "90%+ of the units" can be played from the codex without automatically losing you the game. The remaining 10% is stuff like SM Servitors, Fortifications, Dhrukari Beast squads and so on.

Imperial Guard Space Marines
 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Iv been looking into 40K as an alternative side game to play. I love the setting, lore and models but iv never played it beyond some silly games at friends house. My observations are:

40K on the tabletop is very simple to play. It’s the literal embodiment of a beer and pretzels game that enables you to use your great models to create a cinematic story/engagement. And the game should be respected for how well it does that

• Much of the complexity is driven by GW now catering to the so called competitive crowed. Its laughable that people consider that 40K is a competitive game given how simple full of holes the on table rues are compared to other games in the market. It really is people trying to bang a square peg into a round hole. My message to 40K is not to try and go down the full competitive route and use that as your primary driver, you will ruin your community.

• Most of the complexity in the 40K comes BEFORE the models hit the table. Rules needlessly spread across various books, campaign supplements, FAQs and cards. IMO this is a design feature by GW to increase sales in the same way Apple build redundancy into its products to ensure a market for the next Apple product.

• The fact that GW hasn’t release an all in one app that does all rule, cards, aids and scenarios in the same way Malifaux, WM/H, Infinity and other have amazes me. But that would reduce their ability to plan obsolescence into their books etc

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/21 09:40:18


 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






Sunno wrote:
Iv been looking into 40K as an alternative side game to play. I love the setting, lore and models but iv never played it beyond some silly games at friends house. My observations are:

40K on the tabletop is very simple to play. It’s the literal embodiment of a beer and pretzels game that enables you to use your great models to create a cinematic story/engagement. And the game should be respected for how well it does that

• Much of the complexity is driven by GW now catering to the so called competitive crowed. Its laughable that people consider that 40K is a competitive game given how simple full of holes the on table rues are compared to other games in the market. It really is people trying to bang a square peg into a round hole. My message to 40K is not to try and go down the full competitive route and use that as your primary driver, you will ruin your community.

• Most of the complexity in the 40K comes BEFORE the models hit the table. Rules needlessly spread across various books, campaign supplements, FAQs and cards. IMO this is a design feature by GW to increase sales in the same way Apple build redundancy into its products to ensure a market for the next Apple product.

• The fact that GW hasn’t release an all in one app that does all rule, cards, aids and scenarios in the same way Malifaux, WM/H, Infinity and other have amazes me. But that would reduce their ability to plan obsolescence into their books etc


1 - I challenge you to use literally any iteration of the current adeptus mechanicus rules and call them in any way simple to play. The fact that anyone can see 40k's current ruleset as simple/approachable compared to basically any other game boggles my mind. it's simple in the sense that there's not that many meaningful choices, but I have yet to find any game where resolving a choice you've made is more convoluted and obnoxious than 40k.

2 - yes, and also, this is the problem. But also, if you told ME to cater a game to the competitive crowd, you know what I would not do?

gak like "release one army at a time, using no consistent style guide or pre-planning whatsoever, resulting in every army playing a very slightly different game and having very similar, but CRITICALLY distinct versions of various highly important rules."

I would not, for example if I were making a competitive game, have an army like Genestealer Cults, where 1/2 of the unit entries in the codex can even access the basic army-wide subfaction rule, compete against an army like Space Marines, where every unit gets not just one but seven layers of army-wide special rules.

"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 the_scotsman wrote:
gak like "release one army at a time, using no consistent style guide or pre-planning whatsoever, resulting in every army playing a very slightly different game and having very similar, but CRITICALLY distinct versions of various highly important rules."

I would not, for example if I were making a competitive game, have an army like Genestealer Cults, where 1/2 of the unit entries in the codex can even access the basic army-wide subfaction rule, compete against an army like Space Marines, where every unit gets not just one but seven layers of army-wide special rules.


GW has done a better job of unifying similar rules. Some stinkers still exist ( like fight first / last and redeploys ).

For all the marine special rules marine players are a mixed bag of results depending on who played that week ( and probably how many DE were in the way ). Based on last week's results GSC scored better than BA and UM, but DW did as well as Admech ( which bends into player interest and skill ).

GSC will probably be the next watershed moment for GW ( on top of getting DE under control ).

   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 Daedalus81 wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
gak like "release one army at a time, using no consistent style guide or pre-planning whatsoever, resulting in every army playing a very slightly different game and having very similar, but CRITICALLY distinct versions of various highly important rules."

I would not, for example if I were making a competitive game, have an army like Genestealer Cults, where 1/2 of the unit entries in the codex can even access the basic army-wide subfaction rule, compete against an army like Space Marines, where every unit gets not just one but seven layers of army-wide special rules.


GW has done a better job of unifying similar rules. Some stinkers still exist ( like fight first / last and redeploys ).

For all the marine special rules marine players are a mixed bag of results depending on who played that week ( and probably how many DE were in the way ). Based on last week's results GSC scored better than BA and UM, but DW did as well as Admech ( which bends into player interest and skill ).

GSC will probably be the next watershed moment for GW ( on top of getting DE under control ).


...........are you serious? Here, how 'bout this - why dont we just go and play one of the classic fluff rivalries out on the tabletop. You take a classic Ultramarines army setup with Guilliman, tacticals, terminators, devastators, assault marines and Dreadnoughts, and I'll take a classic Black Legion army with Abbadon, chaos marines, havocs, raptors, and terminators.

Lets just see how well THAT game works out for us and how much fun we have recreating that good good classic 40k fluff grudgematch, I'm sure it'll be just awesome given how great a job GW is doing unifying similar rules

and before you come out and say "well, its not like GW can update everything all at once, that's not fair!" keep in mind they ACTUALLY DID do that and actually put in MORE work than it would take to quickly update analogous chaos units - they released all the beta rules for the BA, DA, SW, and DW rules for free in PDF form when they released codex CSM, they just didnt do that for GK and Chaos because whale consumers get special treatment.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/21 14:12:24


"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in ca
Fresh-Faced New User




Something that may be unsaid - at a higher level - is:

Many of the comments and options are referring to play balance from the gamers perspective and they are good comments and suggestions. Use USR's for maximum understanding
Release core rules for all factions at the time of edition release
DIgital delivery/Updates of rules and FAQ's
etc

But....From GW's perspective:

GW needs/wants to sell stuff and the way to do that is always make the new product better than the old product... and they are doing it by specific rules and exceptions which results in players, even casual ones, having to know their rules and everyone else's too and this is what seems to be the controversy here.




   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut



Bamberg / Erlangen

Tome_Keeper wrote:
GW needs/wants to sell stuff and the way to do that is always make the new product better than the old product... and they are doing it by specific rules and exceptions which results in players, even casual ones, having to know their rules and everyone else's too and this is what seems to be the controversy here.

This is not true at all.

Imperial Guard Space Marines
 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






a_typical_hero wrote:
Tome_Keeper wrote:
GW needs/wants to sell stuff and the way to do that is always make the new product better than the old product... and they are doing it by specific rules and exceptions which results in players, even casual ones, having to know their rules and everyone else's too and this is what seems to be the controversy here.

This is not true at all.


Yeah, no, that's not at all the business strategy at play.

GW wants people to buy in to a faction reliably when they release a codex for that faction, and their goal is to try and have any given faction at their worst point just before getting a new codex, and at their best point just after getting a new codex.

New model releases do typically coincide with new codex books, and they obviously do push up new codexes whenever possible to coincide with new model releases (see sisters for a recent example, and probably also orks) but the spread of power level in any given new release tends to be pretty darn scattered.

Lets use sisters as an example:

Morven Vahl - tipity top auto include top tier
Other named character duo - bottom tier, basically a crusade-only unit
sisters with melee weapons - fairly gakky
sisters predator tank - as gakky as a regular predator tank
Mobile Suit Nundams - mid to high tier, has been seeing some competitive play AFAIK

^That spread does not read to me like 'they make all the new stuff OP and all the old stuff gak'

How bout the new orks?

Beastboss on Squigosaur - tippity top tier
Kill Rig - top tier
Hunta rig - mediocre
Squighog boyz - good in a skew list spamming them otherwise not good and generally outperformed by warbikes, which are an ancient kit everyone has tons of - weird, that.
Squig nob - mediocre
Beastboss on foot - never-include, literally the worst WARBOSS keyword model
Beast Snagga Boyz - bottom tier, ork players are happily spending 3cp to not use more than 1 troop slot in their lists
Kommandos - top tier
Named Runtherd - Rock bottom never-include trash
named beastboss - decent but locked to a clan nobody seems to be using much of, theoretically good in a squig spam list
new deffcopta kit - good
new boyz kit - rock bottom tier
mega-armored boss - middle tier but no reason to use him over beastboss on squigosaur
wurrboy - bottom tier

"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut



Bamberg / Erlangen

Everytime somebody writes "the latest release is always OP", the forum should automatically post a list of all the lists anybody ever cared to put together in regards to the unit's strength.

Imperial Guard Space Marines
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 the_scotsman wrote:

...........are you serious? Here, how 'bout this - why dont we just go and play one of the classic fluff rivalries out on the tabletop. You take a classic Ultramarines army setup with Guilliman, tacticals, terminators, devastators, assault marines and Dreadnoughts, and I'll take a classic Black Legion army with Abbadon, chaos marines, havocs, raptors, and terminators.

Lets just see how well THAT game works out for us and how much fun we have recreating that good good classic 40k fluff grudgematch, I'm sure it'll be just awesome given how great a job GW is doing unifying similar rules

and before you come out and say "well, its not like GW can update everything all at once, that's not fair!" keep in mind they ACTUALLY DID do that and actually put in MORE work than it would take to quickly update analogous chaos units - they released all the beta rules for the BA, DA, SW, and DW rules for free in PDF form when they released codex CSM, they just didnt do that for GK and Chaos because whale consumers get special treatment.


Let me revise my statement to be "so far in 9th". I get that people are disgruntled about un-updated books, but by everyone's admission here there's a lot of rules that go into making armies work in this edition - simply adding a wound to CSM or half-assing an update wouldn't have made them better. I don't think it's quite the same to extend supplements to sub-factions that relate to a major codex than it is to revamp a major codex.

   
Made in us
Sneaky Striking Scorpion




North Carolina

 Daedalus81 wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:

...........are you serious? Here, how 'bout this - why dont we just go and play one of the classic fluff rivalries out on the tabletop. You take a classic Ultramarines army setup with Guilliman, tacticals, terminators, devastators, assault marines and Dreadnoughts, and I'll take a classic Black Legion army with Abbadon, chaos marines, havocs, raptors, and terminators.

Lets just see how well THAT game works out for us and how much fun we have recreating that good good classic 40k fluff grudgematch, I'm sure it'll be just awesome given how great a job GW is doing unifying similar rules

and before you come out and say "well, its not like GW can update everything all at once, that's not fair!" keep in mind they ACTUALLY DID do that and actually put in MORE work than it would take to quickly update analogous chaos units - they released all the beta rules for the BA, DA, SW, and DW rules for free in PDF form when they released codex CSM, they just didnt do that for GK and Chaos because whale consumers get special treatment.


Let me revise my statement to be "so far in 9th". I get that people are disgruntled about un-updated books, but by everyone's admission here there's a lot of rules that go into making armies work in this edition - simply adding a wound to CSM or half-assing an update wouldn't have made them better. I don't think it's quite the same to extend supplements to sub-factions that relate to a major codex than it is to revamp a major codex.


I don't know about that. I'd love an official QoL stopgap FAQ like Scotsman mentioned his club doing for Chaos. It's pretty simple and easy there. And as much as I'd love that for my other armies, I get why that would be less simple. But it just really sticks in the craw that GW can't be bothered to FAQ updates outside of exact corresponding weapons. Like, look at the rumors for Genestealer Cult. Assuming they're real, there's some really cool stuff there, including nice boosts to Purestrains and Patriarch. How much do you wanna bet that GW makes those changes, and they leave Nids Genestealers/Broodlords the exact same as they are now? I guess there's some cosmic justice there given that Nids Genestealers were better than GSC Genestealers for the entirety of 8th, but that's beside the point.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

I don't know about that. I'd love an official QoL stopgap FAQ like Scotsman mentioned his club doing for Chaos. It's pretty simple and easy there. And as much as I'd love that for my other armies, I get why that would be less simple. But it just really sticks in the craw that GW can't be bothered to FAQ updates outside of exact corresponding weapons. Like, look at the rumors for Genestealer Cult. Assuming they're real, there's some really cool stuff there, including nice boosts to Purestrains and Patriarch. How much do you wanna bet that GW makes those changes, and they leave Nids Genestealers/Broodlords the exact same as they are now? I guess there's some cosmic justice there given that Nids Genestealers were better than GSC Genestealers for the entirety of 8th, but that's beside the point.


Yea, really high chance of that, sadly. I'm thinking that's why Octarius is the Nid stop-gap.

   
Made in ie
Ruthless Rafkin





To be honest thematically I have no problem with hive fleet nids being better/different than GSC Cult nids. It's really easy to explain and even makes sense that they would be.


 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:

...........are you serious? Here, how 'bout this - why dont we just go and play one of the classic fluff rivalries out on the tabletop. You take a classic Ultramarines army setup with Guilliman, tacticals, terminators, devastators, assault marines and Dreadnoughts, and I'll take a classic Black Legion army with Abbadon, chaos marines, havocs, raptors, and terminators.

Lets just see how well THAT game works out for us and how much fun we have recreating that good good classic 40k fluff grudgematch, I'm sure it'll be just awesome given how great a job GW is doing unifying similar rules

and before you come out and say "well, its not like GW can update everything all at once, that's not fair!" keep in mind they ACTUALLY DID do that and actually put in MORE work than it would take to quickly update analogous chaos units - they released all the beta rules for the BA, DA, SW, and DW rules for free in PDF form when they released codex CSM, they just didnt do that for GK and Chaos because whale consumers get special treatment.


Let me revise my statement to be "so far in 9th". I get that people are disgruntled about un-updated books, but by everyone's admission here there's a lot of rules that go into making armies work in this edition - simply adding a wound to CSM or half-assing an update wouldn't have made them better. I don't think it's quite the same to extend supplements to sub-factions that relate to a major codex than it is to revamp a major codex.


I don't know about that. I'd love an official QoL stopgap FAQ like Scotsman mentioned his club doing for Chaos. It's pretty simple and easy there. And as much as I'd love that for my other armies, I get why that would be less simple. But it just really sticks in the craw that GW can't be bothered to FAQ updates outside of exact corresponding weapons. Like, look at the rumors for Genestealer Cult. Assuming they're real, there's some really cool stuff there, including nice boosts to Purestrains and Patriarch. How much do you wanna bet that GW makes those changes, and they leave Nids Genestealers/Broodlords the exact same as they are now? I guess there's some cosmic justice there given that Nids Genestealers were better than GSC Genestealers for the entirety of 8th, but that's beside the point.


No its actually EXACTLY THE POINT. The update schedule where an army is predictably at its worst just before they get their new codex, and each edition they add a new layer of rules to make sure everybody gets their shiny new thing that gives an obvious advantage over the armies that dont have it is fantastic for Games Workshop's bottom line and making purchasing predictable, but trash for the actual customers and having a quality game.

it sucks ass for us when each and every edition they go:

"Ok, here's the new mechanic for this edition, we're going to be rolling it out one army at a time with the new codex books and until you get yours you get LITERALLY NOTHING to compensate for it, you just have to play against your friends who have their special new stuff and its going to be incredibly blatantly obvious that you're getting gak on the whole time, but we will happily kidnap beloved mechanics and hold them hostage behind the new system so you have to feel like the donkey-cave for asking your friend to not use the new stuff."

6th edition: Flyers - they introduced them at the beginning of the edition, made them super overpowered, and then whadda ya know each and every codex gave each faction their own flyer, and the armies that didn't have them, welp, hope you like just only hitting on a 6!

7th edition: Formations and Lords of War - "oh, you dont want to play with superheavies in your 2k games? So you'd be so cruel as to deny your opponent the ability to use such beloved characters as Ghazghkull and Marneus Calgar in their games?"

8th edition: Subfactions and Stratagems "What??? the minor subfactions like the Catachans and the Alpha Legion finally get their time in the sun after all these years, and you cruel, cruel monster, you want to deny those poor subfactions their fluffy fun bonus rules. And, no stratagems? OK so I guess you just hate company commanders being able to give orders out of their chimeras, like they've always been able to do, and you're just going to deprive that unit of its iconic signature ability you big meanie..."

9th edition: Purity bonuses/doctrines "Well, OK, we fully admit it at this point, we're just fething giving every new army a special thing that isn't even at all based in any kind of fluff or common sense to make them stronger than all the old ones. Space marine armies...I don't know, whatever, they just get like really good AP now, for no reason. Necrons now get to pick 2 special things, they get like better AP or faster movement or whatever, who cares. Sisters armies get a big army-wide thing you get to pick two of. Armies from 8th edition codexes are all gonna suck, and we're just not going to update them to work at all against 9th edition codexes. We don't give a feth anymore, our apologists will just tell you to wait your turn and it'll all *snicker* it'll, once the...*giggle* once all the codexes are out the game will be really *snort* really balanced and we DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEFINITELY wont pull THAT particular football away again.......HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa - sorry, I just couldnt get it out with a straight face."

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/21 15:46:08


"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in us
Pulsating Possessed Space Marine of Slaanesh




 the_scotsman wrote:

2 - yes, and also, this is the problem. But also, if you told ME to cater a game to the competitive crowd, you know what I would not do?

gak like "release one army at a time, using no consistent style guide or pre-planning whatsoever, resulting in every army playing a very slightly different game and having very similar, but CRITICALLY distinct versions of various highly important rules."

I would not, for example if I were making a competitive game, have an army like Genestealer Cults, where 1/2 of the unit entries in the codex can even access the basic army-wide subfaction rule, compete against an army like Space Marines, where every unit gets not just one but seven layers of army-wide special rules.


Makes me miss the days of indices...

Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. -Kurt Vonnegut 
   
Made in gb
Lit By the Flames of Prospero






Lol the Indexes were absolute garbage. Not even just because there was no differentiating between different subfactions but the rules themselves were just awful and balance was just as bad as any other point in 8th. They're what initially put me off playing 8th in the first place.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 the_scotsman wrote:


No its actually EXACTLY THE POINT. The update schedule where an army is predictably at its worst just before they get their new codex, and each edition they add a new layer of rules to make sure everybody gets their shiny new thing that gives an obvious advantage over the armies that dont have it is fantastic for Games Workshop's bottom line and making purchasing predictable, but trash for the actual customers and having a quality game.

it sucks ass for us when each and every edition they go:

"Ok, here's the new mechanic for this edition, we're going to be rolling it out one army at a time with the new codex books and until you get yours you get LITERALLY NOTHING to compensate for it, you just have to play against your friends who have their special new stuff and its going to be incredibly blatantly obvious that you're getting gak on the whole time, but we will happily kidnap beloved mechanics and hold them hostage behind the new system so you have to feel like the donkey-cave for asking your friend to not use the new stuff."

6th edition: Flyers - they introduced them at the beginning of the edition, made them super overpowered, and then whadda ya know each and every codex gave each faction their own flyer, and the armies that didn't have them, welp, hope you like just only hitting on a 6!

7th edition: Formations and Lords of War - "oh, you dont want to play with superheavies in your 2k games? So you'd be so cruel as to deny your opponent the ability to use such beloved characters as Ghazghkull and Marneus Calgar in their games?"

8th edition: Subfactions and Stratagems "What??? the minor subfactions like the Catachans and the Alpha Legion finally get their time in the sun after all these years, and you cruel, cruel monster, you want to deny those poor subfactions their fluffy fun bonus rules. And, no stratagems? OK so I guess you just hate company commanders being able to give orders out of their chimeras, like they've always been able to do, and you're just going to deprive that unit of its iconic signature ability you big meanie..."

9th edition: Purity bonuses/doctrines "Well, OK, we fully admit it at this point, we're just fething giving every new army a special thing that isn't even at all based in any kind of fluff or common sense to make them stronger than all the old ones. Space marine armies...I don't know, whatever, they just get like really good AP now, for no reason. Necrons now get to pick 2 special things, they get like better AP or faster movement or whatever, who cares. Sisters armies get a big army-wide thing you get to pick two of. Armies from 8th edition codexes are all gonna suck, and we're just not going to update them to work at all against 9th edition codexes. We don't give a feth anymore, our apologists will just tell you to wait your turn and it'll all *snicker* it'll, once the...*giggle* once all the codexes are out the game will be really *snort* really balanced and we DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEFINITELY wont pull THAT particular football away again.......HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa - sorry, I just couldnt get it out with a straight face."


I see you got your caffeine in today.

Best I can tell you is that 8th was a learning process for GW that they're still trying to unfold. 8th edition codexes can still give a good game. Even Knights took 53% with one having a 5-0 finish. Custodes went 5-1. Imperium was 53% and IG was 45% overall.

So what is it that people want, really? An average 40 to 50% win rate means you'll lose half your games. And if you're newer or less inclined to enjoy the ruleset you'll lose more than that. There are varying degrees of loss and at no point have I felt more able to control the degree of loss that I might have.

I don't think this is about win rates, but about people wanting to do cool gak with their models. Yet have thread after thread complaining about the rules that empower that.


   
Made in us
Sneaky Striking Scorpion




North Carolina

 Daedalus81 wrote:


I see you got your caffeine in today.

Best I can tell you is that 8th was a learning process for GW that they're still trying to unfold. 8th edition codexes can still give a good game. Even Knights took 53% with one having a 5-0 finish. Custodes went 5-1. Imperium was 53% and IG was 45% overall.

So what is it that people want, really? An average 40 to 50% win rate means you'll lose half your games. And if you're newer or less inclined to enjoy the ruleset you'll lose more than that. There are varying degrees of loss and at no point have I felt more able to control the degree of loss that I might have.

I don't think this is about win rates, but about people wanting to do cool gak with their models. Yet have thread after thread complaining about the rules that empower that.



What does this discussion of tournament win rates have to do with anything Scotsman said? The issue isn't tournament win rates (and you cherry picked there btw, there were 6 armies under 40% WR and up until this week, Guard very much was one of those armies). It's not even about that. Yeah, you can min max a Nids list to maybe do alright at tournaments, depending on what you run into. But when you do army by army or even unit by unit comparisons, it's just all very, very sad. Your stuff doesn't hit as hard, and it can't take hits as hard. Hell, with Nids, it's even more tantalizing when you look at things like the FW Monstrous Creatures -- it shows that *GW knows how to fix it* but they're just not. That has nothing to do with win rates and it's what makes the game so hard for me to enjoy right now.

ETA: of course, you could say that Nids stuff is meant to be fielded en masse and therefore it's fluffy that their crap is crap. But that's a copout; I don't care how many Carnifexes you can bring, the thing sucks at punching, and it's never going to feel comparable to a Dread or 2 Dreads or whatever (and I would very much argue that Nids should be able to match up against pound for pound equivalents; the Hivemind shouldn't be about subpar evolutionary traits)

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/21 17:01:26


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




I guess the question for GW would be how to maintain hype and interest if they did a genuine "voila, 9th edition, full batch of codexes, btw your faction is getting but maybe a character model for at least another 3-5 years, have fun."
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

What does this discussion of tournament win rates have to do with anything Scotsman said? The issue isn't tournament win rates (and you cherry picked there btw, there were 6 armies under 40% WR and up until this week, Guard very much was one of those armies). It's not even about that. Yeah, you can min max a Nids list to maybe do alright at tournaments, depending on what you run into. But when you do army by army or even unit by unit comparisons, it's just all very, very sad. Your stuff doesn't hit as hard, and it can't take hits as hard. Hell, with Nids, it's even more tantalizing when you look at things like the FW Monstrous Creatures -- it shows that *GW knows how to fix it* but they're just not. That has nothing to do with win rates and it's what makes the game so hard for me to enjoy right now.

ETA: of course, you could say that Nids stuff is meant to be fielded en masse and therefore it's fluffy that their crap is crap. But that's a copout; I don't care how many Carnifexes you can bring, the thing sucks at punching, and it's never going to feel comparable to a Dread or 2 Dreads or whatever (and I would very much argue that Nids should be able to match up against pound for pound equivalents; the Hivemind shouldn't be about subpar evolutionary traits)


Right - it isn't about tournament win rates, but I get the sense that people base the judgements of their experiences around them, because it's the only relatable data.

"See? I only lost, because my army is low win rate."

Playing DE is a fools errand for most armies if you're not adequately prepared, but when you step outside that it's far easier to get a good game. How people define "good game" is also going to vary from "I won" to "I didn't feel totally helpless".

There's so many different motivations on this forum that it becomes hard to parse them in relation to everything else.

   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut




Community could just do it themselves.

Just play on 8th Edition until all 9th Ed. Codexes are completely released, FAQed, etc.. .

Then, while GW is rolling out 10th, play on the "completed 9th Ed." until is 10th is fully 100% releases, patched, FAQed and completed.

Rinse and repeat.



It would even be better than GW keeping it all under wraps until they release it in a complete dump, because it would be public knowledge for a few years for public scrutiny.
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






Tyel wrote:
I guess the question for GW would be how to maintain hype and interest if they did a genuine "voila, 9th edition, full batch of codexes, btw your faction is getting but maybe a character model for at least another 3-5 years, have fun."


Ridiculously easy - release the new edition, release the changes you're going to put forth in various armies, and just release new minis as they come with new datasheets. people certainly didnt need a new 'dex to get hyped for the new admech stuff, did they?

And, feth, the rules are there to get you to buy like 500$ of models - just fething give them away for free. it is absolutely buck wild to me that GW is not just charging the same amount for books that they have been, but in fact charging more now. Absolutely crazy.

"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





UK

I think GW knows that the gradual release of codexes encourages people to buy new armies. Once the excitement of getting a new codex for your existing army has passed, new releases start to look tempting.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/dreadblade/
Chaos Knights - Ultramarines - Thousand Sons - Grey Knights 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




 Daedalus81 wrote:

Best I can tell you is that 8th was a learning process for GW that they're still trying to unfold. 8th edition codexes can still give a good game. Even Knights took 53% with one having a 5-0 finish. Custodes went 5-1. Imperium was 53% and IG was 45% overall.

So what is it that people want, really? An average 40 to 50% win rate means you'll lose half your games. And if you're newer or less inclined to enjoy the ruleset you'll lose more than that. There are varying degrees of loss and at no point have I felt more able to control the degree of loss that I might have.



If you play only at tournaments you will have a hard time not getting at least some wins as in the later rounds you will most likely meet other bad armies/players and your win rate will flatten out. Unless you have the nice luck one of my friends at a tournament a month ago who went 0-20, 0-20 and then actually had to face a good Ad-mech list, which had met the other ad-mech lists at the event in round 1 and 2 and went second, in his third round who also crushed him. At least in round 4 and 5 he got to meet others at his level.

But in a smaller group of people you might have to play against stronger armies and players almost all the time and if you then have a bad army even if you are an average player you might have win rates way way lower than 40%.

I wonder if some of those that feel the game is better balanced than it really is might lack the ability to see what will happen in later turns. I see people all the time that lose during deployment/setup in games(not just 40k) think the games were close and decided in later turns and felt that the game was always up for grabs. While better players might have known how the game would go from the start(besides insane dice rolling ofc but that isnt up to the players anyway). Those that cant see how future turns will work out usually enjoy the games more so it isnt a bad trait for a more casual gamer. But their view on the balance of the game is pretty useless.

I have seen some of our country's best 40k players duke it out against each others and sometimes it is just a stomp depending on who goes first in certain matchups. They know that unless they deploy in certain ways and goes first they will lose in a few turns 95% of the time so they do the smart decision on betting on going first. It might look like they lost due to a bad deployment but they actually lost even before then and their deployment was actually good and their best chance of winning. But you need to be a rather good player to see that.
   
Made in gb
Killer Klaivex




The dark behind the eyes.

 dreadblade wrote:
I think GW knows that the gradual release of codexes encourages people to buy new armies. Once the excitement of getting a new codex for your existing army has passed, new releases start to look tempting.


If they want people to start new armies, why would they insist on having ~£25 barriers to entry for every army?

Surely it would make far more sense to make the rules for all armies free, meaning any player's first purchase for an army would be models?

 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"

 Argive wrote:
GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.


 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"


Akiasura wrote:
I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.


 insaniak wrote:

You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: