Switch Theme:

Peak 40K?  [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 us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





I don't get the desire for auras or spells out of vehicles. You'd make the aura bigger, it hasn't been done before, and you could stick multiple casters in one vehicle granting them the same targeting measurements as well as granting some models extreme mobility when they shouldn't have it.

   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I don't get the desire for auras or spells out of vehicles.
I don't believe you.

I don't believe that after reading the posts in this thread that you don't "get" why people would want rules that work outside of transports to work inside of transports.

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
I don't get the desire for auras or spells out of vehicles.
I don't believe you.

I don't believe that after reading the posts in this thread that you don't "get" why people would want rules that work outside of transports to work inside of transports.


I understand the desire ( that I don't share ), but I don't understand why it seems people act put out by something that hasn't ever been part of the system and would almost certainly be unbalanced.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/16 00:18:35


   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

"It will be unbalanced!"

So let's not ever try.

Let's always assume the worst outcome.

We'll just accept that it not working is a given.




This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/09/16 00:22:56


Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 H.B.M.C. wrote:
"It will be unbalanced!"

So let's not ever try.

Let's always assume the worst outcome.

We'll just accept that it not working is a given.


I mean...everyone here is upset about layering rules and killing power - why make that easier?

   
Made in us
Da Head Honcho Boss Grot




New Jersey, State of Perfection

ERJAK wrote:


Chain of Command's catchphrase is stupid and suggest it's a terrible game.


Its actually probably one of the most highly regarded wargames out there.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/16 00:58:53


This ain't no pansy GW Armor, son - Digital Sculpting Plog, Now with Heavy Weapon Platforms!
Sympathy for the Devil, or: The Project Log from Hell

Ma55ter_fett wrote:It reads like the ramblings of a Nigerian lobotomized Shakespeare typed into a cellphone with a very aggressive autocomplete function.
 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 Daedalus81 wrote:
I'll pause for a moment and show my gratitude for people putting forth their pain points. I think it's necessary to have these discussions ( though some approaches leave much to be desired, personally ), because GW tends to listen a bit more these days and these conversations filter up to the web personalities who have more of a voice, too.

I want nothing more than for 40K to continue to develop. So, thanks.

If I could ask anything of GW it would be for a more digital and open ruleset with less supplements.

If I could think of something that might help people with complexity or overpowered units it would be less starting CP and/or limiting strats to once per unit per phase or turn.


I know it's wildly improbable anyone from GW will actually read this, but in the same vein:

I know I personally don't like 8th/9th and I spend a lot of time complaining about it, but I do so because I feel forced into a corner by a community and a design team that increasingly doesn't recognize or acknowledge that "wargamers" aren't a monolithic entity that must like 9th or go jump in a lake. I don't want 40k to die, and I don't even want 40k to metamorphasize back into something I personally enjoy, because I know a lot of people like what it currently is and I don't think my fun needs to trample on theirs.

What I do want is for GW to recognize that there are a lot of people out there who like the way they used to do things. I want them to see things like the massive popularity of the Soulblight and Battle Sisters releases as a sign that there's a lot of untapped demand for modern resculpts or new units in the style of old armies, rather than assuming that they must move further and further away from what we all liked back in the day. I want the people who remember the weird kludgy clunky little side games, who brought back Necromunda and Blood Bowl with the old style of rules and shiny new models, to get a bigger budget and bring back more things, like Mordheim and BFG. I want 30k to get proper support so people stop looking at me like I have two heads when I say "and we could play a game with scatter dice and vehicle facings!"

I like the Warhammer universe. I like the models, I like the stories, I like the characters. I want to stop feeling like I have to get thrown out because only people who like 9th unconditionally are allowed to participate now.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in us
Grumpy Longbeard





washington state USA

 JNAProductions wrote:
aphyon wrote:
Second, those increases come at a cost. You don't just magically get better for nothing. And this is another pivot point for 40K. What did characters do back then? Basically nothing but fight or change unit org. Now characters give rerolls or other buffs and fight less often.



That's not true at all, sure they were a beat stick when they got into combat themselves, but they also gave the entire army special rules-Vulkan he'stan improving all your meltas/flamers and thunder hammers, shrike gave you army wide fleet USR, the khan outflank and so on.

Does the officer keep the protection of the Chimera, or step out to employ orders?


Ever heard of a radio? like others have pointed out in previous editions VOX casters used to be a very important thing in a guard army that had a huge impact on how they fought.
What about generic characters? What did they do?


Well that didn't take long, i figured this straw man would come up-

So lets just go through marine HQ characters- all of them have buffs to wounds, initiative, WS or BS or both. some skills also transfer to units joined.

Chapter master-orbital bombardment/improved leadership
Captains-improved leadership
Chaplains-litanies of hate to buff CC units they join
Librarians-varies depending on powers taken. mine always takes gate as one of his powers making him basically a super rhino for any infantry unit he joins.
Master of the forge(my favorite)-fire support(conversion beamer/improved BS), repair, bolster defenses.

The other factions in the game have similar abilities to their named counterparts for less points if not as extra special like farseers etc...



GAMES-DUST1947/infinity/B5 wars/epic 40K/5th ed 40K/victory at sea/warmachine/battle tactics/monpoc/battletech/battlefleet gothic/castles in the sky,/heavy gear 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

I never did like the "Everyone gets LD10!" rule that Captains had in that book. Just so happened to coincide with the edition where you needed to take an Ld check to fire at what you wanted. Funny that!

"And they shall know now inconvenient rules..."



This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/16 06:53:56


Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Grumpy Longbeard





washington state USA

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I never did like the "Everyone gets LD10!" rule that Captains had in that book. Just so happened to coincide with the edition where you needed to take an Ld check to fire at what you wanted. Funny that!

"And they shall know now inconvenient rules..."





Well that started in 4th. it was limited to the unit joined in 5th unless they had the special rule "rights of battle" for table wide LD 10 and only Cato Sicarius had that in the general marine book in 5th.



GAMES-DUST1947/infinity/B5 wars/epic 40K/5th ed 40K/victory at sea/warmachine/battle tactics/monpoc/battletech/battlefleet gothic/castles in the sky,/heavy gear 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Oh, I'm confusing 4th and 5th.

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 catbarf wrote:
Scotsman and Erjak, I think you guys are missing the point. Unit's not asking for the game to play like a WW2 wargame, he wants it to feel like 40K The Game and fit the source material that he's invested in. The examples he's given aren't 'I can't properly represent auftragstaktik on my 40K table', they're basic in-universe stuff that the current rules don't model very well or intuitively.

A super-realistic historical military game wouldn't have rules for using tanks to run over infantry. But running over Orks with your Chimera at full speed while the officer shouts orders from the hatch (while waving his chainsword) seems perfectly fitting with 40K. So pointing out that 40K is inherently unrealistic heavy metal album cover fantasy is not a very compelling justification for why tank shock doesn't exist.

The complaint isn't that 9th Ed doesn't feel like a realistic military simulation. It's that it doesn't feel like a good representation of the 40K universe, and is too abstract and 'gamey' for him to get invested in the narrative.


Sure - in this edition, tanks (except for specific, melee-capable tanks like deffrollas) cannot roll through infantry units. This is a thing that can cause you to feel like there is little realism.

My overall point is just. each edition has things like that. You are not choosing 'the more realistic edition' you are choosing 'the edition that has less of the things that you dont like and more of the things that you do like.'

Personally, tank shock is all well and good, but 5e has vastly more things that frustrate me when trying to 'picture the narative' than 8th/9th. Infantry essentially cowered in transports 99% of the time in 5th - my lovingly painted ork infantry would sit on the side of the board every game, like a benched basketball player waiting for coach to put him in, popping out of their trukk for a turn to deliver a melee insta-kill to the rear of some vehicle before evaporating to the very first weapon pointed their way. 4th/5th works fantastic for someone like Unit who just wants to say "OK, YOU have to play a minaitures game, I'M going to be over here playing with my three action figures and if you can kill any of them its not fair" but the reason 8th got me back into the game was basically because I finally got to put infantry on the board and have them have some kind of reasonable odds of staying there for more than 5 seconds. Now that 9th is 'everything infantry and vehicles alike just explodes instantly' that enjoyment is gone again.

The amount of things that cause melee units in 5e to stand around like idiots, waiting to be scythed down by enemy fire, vehicles to be able to essentially ignore everything that exists and just roll around the table unopposed, the old AP/instant death system that meant that a unit would be almost invincible to a particular weapon but up the strength and AP by just one and that weapon suddenly instantly wipes them out with no effort at all... these all destroy my realism and sense of enjoyment far more than the general framework of 8th/9th. The problems I have are with the details of 8th/9th and just, where the values of the numbers are at. If offense stayed exactly the same, and every single model just had double the wound-count, I'd probably enjoy 9th edition 100% more. it'd feel more like a game with choices and back-and-forth rather than a situation where you just figure out a turn 1/turn 2 tempo gameplan and execute that gameplan with no variation every game.

"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
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

That wasn’t a straw man, that was a question.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Grumpy Longbeard





washington state USA

 the_scotsman wrote:
 catbarf wrote:
Scotsman and Erjak, I think you guys are missing the point. Unit's not asking for the game to play like a WW2 wargame, he wants it to feel like 40K The Game and fit the source material that he's invested in. The examples he's given aren't 'I can't properly represent auftragstaktik on my 40K table', they're basic in-universe stuff that the current rules don't model very well or intuitively.

A super-realistic historical military game wouldn't have rules for using tanks to run over infantry. But running over Orks with your Chimera at full speed while the officer shouts orders from the hatch (while waving his chainsword) seems perfectly fitting with 40K. So pointing out that 40K is inherently unrealistic heavy metal album cover fantasy is not a very compelling justification for why tank shock doesn't exist.

The complaint isn't that 9th Ed doesn't feel like a realistic military simulation. It's that it doesn't feel like a good representation of the 40K universe, and is too abstract and 'gamey' for him to get invested in the narrative.


Sure - in this edition, tanks (except for specific, melee-capable tanks like deffrollas) cannot roll through infantry units. This is a thing that can cause you to feel like there is little realism.

My overall point is just. each edition has things like that. You are not choosing 'the more realistic edition' you are choosing 'the edition that has less of the things that you dont like and more of the things that you do like.'

Personally, tank shock is all well and good, but 5e has vastly more things that frustrate me when trying to 'picture the narative' than 8th/9th. Infantry essentially cowered in transports 99% of the time in 5th - my lovingly painted ork infantry would sit on the side of the board every game, like a benched basketball player waiting for coach to put him in, popping out of their trukk for a turn to deliver a melee insta-kill to the rear of some vehicle before evaporating to the very first weapon pointed their way. 4th/5th works fantastic for someone like Unit who just wants to say "OK, YOU have to play a minaitures game, I'M going to be over here playing with my three action figures and if you can kill any of them its not fair" but the reason 8th got me back into the game was basically because I finally got to put infantry on the board and have them have some kind of reasonable odds of staying there for more than 5 seconds. Now that 9th is 'everything infantry and vehicles alike just explodes instantly' that enjoyment is gone again.

The amount of things that cause melee units in 5e to stand around like idiots, waiting to be scythed down by enemy fire, vehicles to be able to essentially ignore everything that exists and just roll around the table unopposed, the old AP/instant death system that meant that a unit would be almost invincible to a particular weapon but up the strength and AP by just one and that weapon suddenly instantly wipes them out with no effort at all... these all destroy my realism and sense of enjoyment far more than the general framework of 8th/9th. The problems I have are with the details of 8th/9th and just, where the values of the numbers are at. If offense stayed exactly the same, and every single model just had double the wound-count, I'd probably enjoy 9th edition 100% more. it'd feel more like a game with choices and back-and-forth rather than a situation where you just figure out a turn 1/turn 2 tempo gameplan and execute that gameplan with no variation every game.


Wow that is just completely not true at all. i still play LOTS of 5th edition regularly. sometimes there are vehicles, sometimes there are hordes but it isn't as stark as you paint it to be.

This was from a 1k point game last weekend in fact where the only "vehicles" on the table were ork ZZAP guns.

Spoiler:


Not a trukk to cower behind in sight, and the orks won that game

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/16 12:53:53




GAMES-DUST1947/infinity/B5 wars/epic 40K/5th ed 40K/victory at sea/warmachine/battle tactics/monpoc/battletech/battlefleet gothic/castles in the sky,/heavy gear 
   
Made in us
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader





Ah yes, the famous version of 5th edition which had Admech and frequently used rules from 3rd edition, was it? to bring Warhound Titans into the game.

That's my favorite version of 5th edition...

Your playgroup definitely has a different attitude towards things than the playgroup Scotsman had during 5th edition. For example, they use homebrew and house rules. That may have something to do with the disconnect between the_scotsman's 5th edition experience and yours.
But I also remember, in a much wider sense, that vehicle based lists were king besides 15 GK paladins and nob biker lists. So I'm not so sure your experience is the common one...
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







I'm advocating for 4th, anyways, not 5th, where I can only take 1 Baneblade and only at more than 2k points and transports are were NOTORIOUS for being deathtraps (yay "entangled" and Vehicle Annihilated!).

Where terrain was abstract and melee units were pretty scary (consolidate into combat!) though vehicles WERE hit on the facing you were actually in, hmm... obviously I am trying to be OP.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/16 13:15:02


 
   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

from my experience (and 5th was the Edition were I played the most tournaments) vehicle based melee lists were a thing, as well as nob bikes, but never seen the 15 GK list or the famous leaf blower (which was more a US thing anyway)

Tyranid Gaunt Spam or infiltrating Symbiont Spam was more common here than Nob Biker

Melee list dominated the meta to a point because of the objective focused scenarios used here (sitting back and stay out of melee range to shoot everything would not win you the game)

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





 AnomanderRake wrote:


I know I personally don't like 8th/9th and I spend a lot of time complaining about it, but I do so because I feel forced into a corner by a community and a design team that increasingly doesn't recognize or acknowledge that "wargamers" aren't a monolithic entity that must like 9th or go jump in a lake. I don't want 40k to die, and I don't even want 40k to metamorphasize back into something I personally enjoy, because I know a lot of people like what it currently is and I don't think my fun needs to trample on theirs.


This usually does come across in your posts. Obviously, we disagree fairly often, but you're pretty reasonable in your posts- I've exalted more than one. So please, don't see this response as an antagonistic take-down. But I think 8th and 9th do demonstrate that GW recognizes wargamers aren't a monolithic entity- I think that's why these editions have 3 ways to play and native support for four sizes of game. Every other edition was far more monolithic than these have been.

It is a shame from my point of view that you have a difficult time finding a more open-minded group of players- I similarly feel for Karol and other posters who talk about the difficulty of finding anyone who wants to play anything but 2k Matched. I also recognize that some of the things you like least about this edition may be common to all three modes of play. And if I recall correctly, I know some of your favourite armies have received rougher treatment.

But I think there is a lot of evidence to support the idea that GW is trying to be responsive to different player preferences- more so than in any other editions.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

What I do want is for GW to recognize that there are a lot of people out there who like the way they used to do things. I want them to see things like the massive popularity of the Soulblight and Battle Sisters releases as a sign that there's a lot of untapped demand for modern resculpts or new units in the style of old armies, rather than assuming that they must move further and further away from what we all liked back in the day. I want the people who remember the weird kludgy clunky little side games, who brought back Necromunda and Blood Bowl with the old style of rules and shiny new models, to get a bigger budget and bring back more things, like Mordheim and BFG. I want 30k to get proper support so people stop looking at me like I have two heads when I say "and we could play a game with scatter dice and vehicle facings!"


Again, this is happening. I think it's why they gave Sisters a second wave and broke the last dex of the edition curse. It's why there are now as many or more Necromunda SKUs as there have ever been. It is a bummer to me that 40k doesn't have a current Warhammer Quest game- interactions between BSF and 40k were absolutely critical in establishing the new game for me- without the weird, wacky Rogue Traders, the Ambull and the Zoat, I wouldn't have liked 8th anywhere near as much as I did.

I'd like to see BFG return as well, and I think there might be space for GW to combine some Aeronautica and Titanicus to create a new Epic.

As for resculpts, more and faster would be cool, but this too is happening. Ork Kommandos and Copters, a few resculpts for CWE/ DE with hopefully more on the way.

And the 30k box that's coming is pretty much confirmed? It's still going to be a while- some people thought we might get it Q4, but I think people are starting to think next year is more likely? But it's coming, and we know it is keeping scatter dice at least.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

I like the Warhammer universe. I like the models, I like the stories, I like the characters. I want to stop feeling like I have to get thrown out because only people who like 9th unconditionally are allowed to participate now.


I hope that my posts haven't made you feel this way. I love 9th- LOVE it. But I applaud the Herohammer folks, I applaud houserulers (even though I like 9th, I've added a few houserules of my own for the sake of campaign dynamics) and one page rule folks. I don't think these kind of fan-based alternatives were as available or widely discussed during previous editions, so I'm not sure I agree that there's more "Love the current ed or shut up" than usual. Of course, that might be dependent on your local meta more than Dakka.

I will say that as a guy who likes 9th, there have been times when I've had to take Dakka vacations, because the hate some people have for the game is hard to read. I think I get caught up in the idea that since my thoughts on the game are positive, they aren't as hard to get through... But I suppose game positive responses can be just as difficult for folks whose experiences with the game are negative as the negative comments are for me.

My posts probably make it sound sometimes like I don't believe there's room for improvement. There is room for improvement, of course. I just read a fair number of recommendations that some people think would improve the game, and often think those specific recommendations would ruin something that I happen to like. There's a lot of folks that really want to do away with subfaction distinctions for the sake of balance and simplicity, and subfaction distinction for armies other than marines is something I've been waiting for since I was a teenager. My favourite part of the Sisters revival is that the subfactions actually play differently. I feel like GW finally loves me as much as they've loved space marine players for three decades and I'm genuinely shocked by the number of people who want to jump in a time machine and undo that for the sake of balance, or flow, or simplicity, or anti-bloat or whatever.

I don't think I've seen YOU make those suggestions- you seem to like fringe content as much as I do.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/16 14:06:09


 
   
Made in de
Terrifying Doombull






Nuremberg

I'd love it if GW would put all their old codices and rulebooks and army books up for sale as high quality PDFs. I'd buy loads of stuff if they did. WOTC does that with all previous editions of D&D and they've got plenty of sales from me for it.

   
Made in us
Grumpy Longbeard





washington state USA

Rihgu wrote:
Ah yes, the famous version of 5th edition which had Admech and frequently used rules from 3rd edition, was it? to bring Warhound Titans into the game.

That's my favorite version of 5th edition...

Your playgroup definitely has a different attitude towards things than the playgroup Scotsman had during 5th edition. For example, they use homebrew and house rules. That may have something to do with the disconnect between the_scotsman's 5th edition experience and yours.
But I also remember, in a much wider sense, that vehicle based lists were king besides 15 GK paladins and nob biker lists. So I'm not so sure your experience is the common one...


Yeah because compatible rules for normal games that use pre-apocalypse designs totally change 5th edition.

You also seem to forget i am VERY active in the wargaming hobby and i actually played during 5th without house rules getting in 600+ games(that's about 3 a weekend on average for those counting) it was no different then even if some of the core rules changes from 4th to 5th were less to my liking(while others were better).

Even then the reality is the same, i face hordes, i faced vehicle lists (one of my regular opponent had a FW corsair list) monster bug lists, bike lists, drop pod lists, chapter approved lists (like the all kroot army) i even played in a couple grand tournaments(and the reason why i swore off of them as they bring out the worst in people from the perspective of us more casual minded gamers) and my experience was still the same.



GAMES-DUST1947/infinity/B5 wars/epic 40K/5th ed 40K/victory at sea/warmachine/battle tactics/monpoc/battletech/battlefleet gothic/castles in the sky,/heavy gear 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



London

 the_scotsman wrote:
Now that 9th is 'everything infantry and vehicles alike just explodes instantly' that enjoyment is gone again


But if they didn't the game would take forever. I think of my unit as cards in a CCG so have little attachment and pack them off on suicidal tasks.
   
Made in us
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader





aphyon wrote:
Rihgu wrote:
Ah yes, the famous version of 5th edition which had Admech and frequently used rules from 3rd edition, was it? to bring Warhound Titans into the game.

That's my favorite version of 5th edition...

Your playgroup definitely has a different attitude towards things than the playgroup Scotsman had during 5th edition. For example, they use homebrew and house rules. That may have something to do with the disconnect between the_scotsman's 5th edition experience and yours.
But I also remember, in a much wider sense, that vehicle based lists were king besides 15 GK paladins and nob biker lists. So I'm not so sure your experience is the common one...


Yeah because compatible rules for normal games that use pre-apocalypse designs totally change 5th edition.

You also seem to forget i am VERY active in the wargaming hobby and i actually played during 5th without house rules getting in 600+ games(that's about 3 a weekend on average for those counting) it was no different then even if some of the core rules changes from 4th to 5th were less to my liking(while others were better).

Even then the reality is the same, i face hordes, i faced vehicle lists (one of my regular opponent had a FW corsair list) monster bug lists, bike lists, drop pod lists, chapter approved lists (like the all kroot army) i even played in a couple grand tournaments(and the reason why i swore off of them as they bring out the worst in people from the perspective of us more casual minded gamers) and my experience was still the same.


But.. if that's YOUR experience... and the_scotsman had a totally different experience... how are we going to reconcile this? Surely there must be some way for the both of you to have totally opposite experiences without either of you being totally lying...

Things that you can call out as being totally not true at all: "Terminators have a 5+ armor save", "Ork shoota boyz are 100 points per model", "In 5th edition, vehicles didn't have armor values and used Toughness just like infantry"
Things that you can not call out as being totally not true at all: Other players' actual lived experiences.

5th edition to me and many others was rife with parking lots and leafblowers. 5th edition to you and I guess kodos had more variety (and probably others). Great. Both of these things can be true and it's based on a huge number of factors.
   
Made in es
[DCM]
Secret Inquisitorial Eldar Xenexecutor






your mind

Those factors seem to be the people with whom one plays. After second, I was tutored on late 3rd or it might have been early 4th by a guy that play tested for that edition…it was 2001 iirc. he had rhinos and csm … I had my guardians and so on… I played with him exactly that one time. Never again. With that philosophy, I have had almost no negative experiences in this hobby due to gamey meta chasing net list optimisers… I avoid those sorts of people, in every area of life.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/16 20:30:08


   
Made in us
Grumpy Longbeard





washington state USA

Rihgu wrote:
aphyon wrote:
Rihgu wrote:
Ah yes, the famous version of 5th edition which had Admech and frequently used rules from 3rd edition, was it? to bring Warhound Titans into the game.

That's my favorite version of 5th edition...

Your playgroup definitely has a different attitude towards things than the playgroup Scotsman had during 5th edition. For example, they use homebrew and house rules. That may have something to do with the disconnect between the_scotsman's 5th edition experience and yours.
But I also remember, in a much wider sense, that vehicle based lists were king besides 15 GK paladins and nob biker lists. So I'm not so sure your experience is the common one...


Yeah because compatible rules for normal games that use pre-apocalypse designs totally change 5th edition.

You also seem to forget i am VERY active in the wargaming hobby and i actually played during 5th without house rules getting in 600+ games(that's about 3 a weekend on average for those counting) it was no different then even if some of the core rules changes from 4th to 5th were less to my liking(while others were better).

Even then the reality is the same, i face hordes, i faced vehicle lists (one of my regular opponent had a FW corsair list) monster bug lists, bike lists, drop pod lists, chapter approved lists (like the all kroot army) i even played in a couple grand tournaments(and the reason why i swore off of them as they bring out the worst in people from the perspective of us more casual minded gamers) and my experience was still the same.


But.. if that's YOUR experience... and the_scotsman had a totally different experience... how are we going to reconcile this? Surely there must be some way for the both of you to have totally opposite experiences without either of you being totally lying...

Things that you can call out as being totally not true at all: "Terminators have a 5+ armor save", "Ork shoota boyz are 100 points per model", "In 5th edition, vehicles didn't have armor values and used Toughness just like infantry"
Things that you can not call out as being totally not true at all: Other players' actual lived experiences.

5th edition to me and many others was rife with parking lots and leafblowers. 5th edition to you and I guess kodos had more variety (and probably others). Great. Both of these things can be true and it's based on a huge number of factors.


Perhaps it is because my FLGS is near 2 military bases so we have lots of turn over. and we always encouraged new players to build well rounded "take all comers" lists in 5th not net listing or list tailoring. Sure you did see some of that-the lash prince list, the mechanized list etc... but it wasn't to common or game breaking.



GAMES-DUST1947/infinity/B5 wars/epic 40K/5th ed 40K/victory at sea/warmachine/battle tactics/monpoc/battletech/battlefleet gothic/castles in the sky,/heavy gear 
   
Made in it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

If people play well rounded "take all comers" lists, which in my opinion is the best way to play 40k properly, then also 9th edition is an amazing experience. It's all about the players' mindset.


 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 Blackie wrote:
If people play well rounded "take all comers" lists, which in my opinion is the best way to play 40k properly, then also 9th edition is an amazing experience. It's all about the players' mindset.


Which is largely my problem with current 40k. The people who are having fun with it because they happen to hang with communities of people who all agree with them on exactly what's "the right mindset" then spend a lot of time telling me the game is objectively superior and the fact that I don't happen to have their magical idyllic communities where everyone agrees with each other means they get to point and sneer at how wrong my mindset is.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in us
Grumpy Longbeard





washington state USA


If people play well rounded "take all comers" lists, which in my opinion is the best way to play 40k properly, then also 9th edition is an amazing experience.


In my experience 9th actually punishes you for doing that.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/17 07:40:06




GAMES-DUST1947/infinity/B5 wars/epic 40K/5th ed 40K/victory at sea/warmachine/battle tactics/monpoc/battletech/battlefleet gothic/castles in the sky,/heavy gear 
   
Made in it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

aphyon wrote:

If people play well rounded "take all comers" lists, which in my opinion is the best way to play 40k properly, then also 9th edition is an amazing experience.


In my experience 9th actually punishes you for doing that.


Fair enough, my experience is the opposite. I loved 5th edition but when my orks weren't playing the "Kan Wall" or the "3 Battlewagons + nob bikers" lists they died horribly against anyone. Same with SW as litterally everyone played las+plas razorbacks and long fangs spam. Lists with a bit of everything work better now than then, although in tournaments skew lists (see buggy spam) are still common.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
If people play well rounded "take all comers" lists, which in my opinion is the best way to play 40k properly, then also 9th edition is an amazing experience. It's all about the players' mindset.


Which is largely my problem with current 40k. The people who are having fun with it because they happen to hang with communities of people who all agree with them on exactly what's "the right mindset" then spend a lot of time telling me the game is objectively superior and the fact that I don't happen to have their magical idyllic communities where everyone agrees with each other means they get to point and sneer at how wrong my mindset is.


Yeah, the playing group is the major factor for a game's success.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/17 08:06:37



 
   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

"9th is a good game, if you have the right gaming group"

is similar to

"What is your opinion of 9th? Changes I would like to see in 10th....."


it both tells you that 9th is not in a very good spot right now and it is only the Community that keeps it going, not the game/rules

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut



Bamberg / Erlangen

 Blackie wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
Which is largely my problem with current 40k. The people who are having fun with it because they happen to hang with communities of people who all agree with them on exactly what's "the right mindset" then spend a lot of time telling me the game is objectively superior and the fact that I don't happen to have their magical idyllic communities where everyone agrees with each other means they get to point and sneer at how wrong my mindset is.
Yeah, the playing group is the major factor for a game's success.

Having a group with a similar mindset is not a thing that is mandatory to have fun just for current 40k. Former editions getting less or no "balance patches" at all and having a wider gap between playable and trash units made it even more important.

We are still not there were you can take an all Scouts meme list and can expect to reasonable compare against a Dhrukari tournament list. I don't think the game will ever be like that, to be honest. I do think you have better chances now, though, than let's say in 4th edition against an Eldar tourny list with your 10th company.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 kodos wrote:
"9th is a good game, if you have the right gaming group"

is similar to

"What is your opinion of 9th? Changes I would like to see in 10th....."


it both tells you that 9th is not in a very good spot right now and it is only the Community that keeps it going, not the game/rules

Disagree. The perfect game with the wrong group still sucks donkey. And until we have the perfect game, you will always find something to improve for the next iteration.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/17 08:26:20


Imperial Guard Space Marines
 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: