Switch Theme:

Are We Entering a New Golden Age of 40k? (Podcast Discussion)  [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 jp
Perfect Shot Black Templar Predator Pilot





Ishikawa Prefecture, Japan

Nah, not even close.

Early 8th was probably the closest to "living in a golden age" and they really threw baby out with the bath water as the edition progressed. It certainly had its flaws - stratagem and general rules bloat, the easy with which cheap troops could be spammed to farm CP, and the absolute raw cynicism and greed of PA at the end.
But mechanically, none of the most glaring problems in that edition have been meaningfully fixed, and we're instead very early in a new edition that has done nothing but bloat in a really asymmetrical, unbalanced way. This reflects model releases, which are completely lopsided, and reflect an abject lack of planning or direction on GWs part.

Models in particular are really pretty far from "Golden Age" material.
While sculpting has certainly improved from a technological perspective, and GW are certainly, slowly, starting to realize the apatite that fans have for some of the more flavorsome parts of the setting - admech, gsc, the various characters from BSF - there are a lot of trends in GW minis of the current "age" that are pretty obtuse. Options seem to be a thing GW doesn't really know what to do with, and most modern kits customization potential has been severely hobbled. Ostentatious sculpting by the studio - smoke and other effects, hyper-dynamic posing, and needlessly large plastic bases - a la belakor, or the Triumph of St. Katherine.
While this is all very impressive, it constrains the piece as a gaming miniature, and as a hobby project.
As far as gaming goes, the GW range is a total mess. Some - marines - are bloated to the point of farce. Others have significant gaps, have had options stripped out, or are left with minis that, as legacy pieces, are excellent, but are also out of step with the rest of the model range. GWs policy of "retiring" sculpts, too, or FOMO-esq last chance to buy and made to order sales illustrate that they understand, at least to a point, that older models are sometimes still well liked by customers, but that scarcity is something that the company is happy to manipulate.

GWs fan interactions are also an area in which they really stand to improve. Their commitment to 'smoke and mirrors' marketing is a decent way of generating buzz around potential upcoming releases. But it's also deeply confusing, and leads to uncontrolled frustration amongst fans, especially when GW leaves their intentions completely unsaid, and frequently misleads the "community" with regards to playtesting etc. Warcom and White Dwarf are largely patronizing, very thinly-veiled adverts, with sparse actual hobby or gaming content, and the way they use social media to get pictures of painted products to use in their advertising material, effectively taking free labor from fans, is honestly bordering on scummy.

Their internal conversion rates are frankly shocking - anyone remember the collective outrage at the FW hikes for antipodes a few years back? Died a bit of a death, that outrage, huh? - and show no signs of abating, nor do their consistent price hikes.

These are all moans, but they only exist because I love 40k so much. GW are okay, and the current 40k climates could certainly stand to be worse. But it's also so fething far from a golden age, and anyone who says so either isn't looking hard enough, or else is (probably at best, only hoping to be) getting paid to say it.


Ongoing P&M shennanigans!
Warband of the Pilgrim Saint - Marines and SoB, My first ever project! http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/664123.page
Assorted Inquisition stuff! I get wierd with conversions sometimes! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/743187.page
The Carpathian Tin Ghosts - Skitarii Rangers who don't want redemption - only to kill xenos. https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/748211.page
Vaguely Coleridgian Eldar Friends https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/749595.page#9830499
Care for a snifter of mine-tonic, comrade? Genestealers await the coming of the Black Emperor https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/757105.page
The Moorendar 3rd and the Proselytes of the Drain Fly - Nurgle 40k https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/770536.page
Haven't bought from GW since December 2019 - resist price hikes and unfair pricing outside of the UK  
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Yeah I'd have to agree, the only gold is probably that lining GWs pockets from the price increases or perhaps what is in the models to begin with growing their cost matched only by the pace at which they release book after book of rules to drown us in. All the while of course saying how " simple " and " intuitive " the whole edition is.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




I'm not sure why anyone would take FLG seriously when talking about GW. Their business is primarily based on selling GW stuff and running tournaments for GW games. They're hardly the poster boys for balanced opinion pieces.

For me the answer is "almost certainly not". The only reason I don't say "no" is because it's almost impossible to tell where we're at with the game in the middle of a global pandemic. I estimate I've probably played around 5% of the number of games I would have expected to play of 9th edition had it launched in normal times so getting an idea of where the game is at is not so easy.

We don't know how good balance is right now, except to say there are a bunch of outliers at both ends of the spectrum thanks to the fact many armies don't yet have a 9th edition Codex. We also have so few Codices it's too early to tell how well GW will manage power creep. My bet would be on them continuing their inability to design balanced books throughout an edition, or even stick to one basic design paradigm for that time.

Player counts are also hard to judge. I can only base my opinions on the last year or so of 8th, but I definitely saw a larger number of people looking to start the game in that time, while also seeing a much larger than usual number of people never get beyond that stage. Often this was down to price but I think it was also down to the gaming experience as well. The fantasy of playing some deep tactical game of play and counterplay is quite quickly dispelled for even the most novice of gamers in the first couple of games, or even just by watching some games. It looks to me as though GW has done a good job of getting their message out there and drawing in new players but a relatively bad job of retaining them.

Miniatures? That's a hard no from me. Technically they're excellent. You just need to look at the stuff from the Indomitus box compared to the Dark Imperium box to see how they've progressed. The razor-thin tolerances they can now cast to are way ahead of the rest of the industry. However, that comes at the price of ease of assembly. I've just finished putting the new Flayed Ones together. If this is how GW are going to continue with their models they can feth off. Loads of fiddly pieces that are almost impossible to support while they dry and equally difficult to clean up combined with small contact points is a recipe for frustration. I also hate the inconsistent way options are approached for each set. The move towards huge centrepiece models is also extremely annoying, from a gaming and transport point of view as well as the tiresome assumption that bigger must be better. The new Belakor is a good example. Looks pretty cool but there's no need for it to be anywhere near that size and it doesn't need a silly scenic base either. The move towards "dynamic" posing and scenic bases is annoying and unnecessary. Finally, the newer sculpts often lack soul. They're technically great but all this smoke, warp energy, fiery swords and silly posing means the character of the model itself often suffers. It also means you can end up with a weirdly incoherent army with your characters standing on three different types of scenic base and units sometimes looking like they're jumping off in different directions. We've lost the collective spectacle in favour of the individual.

So, in summary: rules still bloated and shallow and the models are technically great but lacking in a lot of ways. The playerbase is good which means 40k is the one game you're almost guaranteed to be able to play wherever there's a gaming store or club. It's also still a pretty good game to play with likeminded friends, provided you don't try to go too competitive with it. I don't think we're in a Golden Age and given the direction GW are going I feel like we're moving further away from one rather than getting closer.
   
Made in it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

It's entirely subjective. I've hated 8th edition for example, and I mostly play orks. The point is I don't really care about gameplay and the most broken combos as I typically play pre-arranged games anyways. IMHO the most important factor is the kinds of lists that work: 8th edition ork codex was hand down more competitive than 7th edition one but if I have to play with 6 characters and 9 troops just to make my army work (or even 4 HQs and 6 troops) I'd play 7th edition anytime. Not to mention that I was stuck with a crappy index for half edition.

9th started amazing as it completely removed that issue and now lists look much more balanced in terms of units brought to the table. Terms of scoring are also much better now.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/09 07:52:00


Orks 7000
Space Wolves 4000
 
   
Made in gb
Nurgle Predator Driver with an Infestation




Ruleswise - no
Miniatures - possibly, my nostalgia goggles kind of prefer the older silly models but I'm aware that is why
Content - probably, they're putting out a lot of stuff, should be way less lopsided in terms of faction releases though
Engagement with community - nah, they were probably better with White Dwarf alone back in the day but they have improved.
Number of players - Seems so
£££ - definitely
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




Wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments that it’s subjective. The current states does have a lot going for it. Whilst good, I wouldn’t call it golden.

9E does have a lot going for it.

Ruleswise/ Gameplay:

For:
The fresh start (relative to 7E) was arguably at least an edition overdue, and the core system is sleek and easy to use.

Against:
8E suffered a lot from rules bloat (the PA series added a lot of books, with relatively few, but nonetheless useful rules), and whilst covid has no doubt affected release dates I donn't see how Drukhari getting content in a splat book released alongside the Codex can be a good sign.

The cover rules for 8E were absolutely abysmal, and are much expanded in 9E.

Whilst I acknowledge that I’ve played 40k for a long, long time I am really against T1 charging into the opponent’s deployment zone. The overall pace of the game seems to have taken a turn for the worse, with terrain and manoeuvring taking a back step (can’t comment on 9E haven’t had the chance to test it out much). Balancing melee vs shooting (and other abilities) seems is always a tricky one, but having a range of options to traverse no-mans land and charge the enemy lines before the enemy has even got to move seems to make the balancing act more difficult (e.g. if you give some assault troops the ability to move perform a T1 charge, is it surprising that shooting gets even more lethal…) What may be wanted here is a de-escalation of abilities and a reduction in that initial lethality.

Models

For:
GW continue to produce very pretty models. SoB in plastic, Beast Snaggas incoming, Revamp of Necron range

Against - As others have brought up, they whilst very detailed the models, especially characters, often compare unfavourably to their predecessors in terms of posabiliy and customisation/ options which does detract from the hobby aspect a lot. I think the hobby, and thus the game losses out when characters who are often centre piece models for an army are monopose have virtually no wargear options (Primaris Captains are a prime example of the new ethos). With the alignment between datafaxes and the current models available this has had a direct knock-on affect to the game with various much loved options have consigned to Legends, and various other having their options much reduced.
As a prime example whilst it was good to see Orks get a load of new (and very orky) buggies in 8E, this has come at the cost of old buggies/wartrike/skorcha and many character options… I would be surprised if I was alone in voicing the opinion that I’d have rather seen a slightly smaller range of entirely new stuff and a new kits for replace previously extant options (e.g. kit for Character on Bikes, Boss in Mega-armour etc...).

Updating of kits/ ranges seems to be quite erratic and release schedule dominated by marines...
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer




Tampa, FL

Re: models it's a double edged sword. Quality wise they are astounding. But there's a point where things become detailed to the level of ridiculous versus being useful as gamepieces. Just take a look at the recent Lumineth models. Absolutely ridiculous poses that do not need to be done like that and an increasing amount of minor details just for the sake of saying look at how detailed this model is. It used to be regular models had a certain level of detail because they were regular rank and file models and then the real detail was saved for character models and things like that.

I feel that it's gotten to a point where even the basic models I have way too much of a level of detail that they don't need and I don't think that's a good thing Even though visually it would appear to be.

On the rules front I think they have already, this early in the edition, started to blatantly show codex creep and signs that they are going to do the same thing they did that started to bloat 8th and ruined 7th . In fact I would say that they just doubled down on all the problem points for 9th.

- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in es
Regular Dakkanaut




No. It is the golden era for corporate interests, not necessarily for us.

Balance wise, things have always been bad, but now they are monetizing metas.

In terms of models, it depends. This is subjective, but some old model were really good and I like them over modern ones; this is more the case for the fantasy side (i.e. dwarf slayers vs fyreslayers). I dislike primaris but I am also not fond of some of the early marines. However, some metal ork models were really good. Now, I starting to suspect the build models with breakable pieces on purpose.

All in all, I think they are riding the charm of something some nerdy lads created 30-40 years ago. As time goes by, it is increasingly dilluted in the new settings, but what sets it appart from the competition, foundation wise, is the setting.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





A.T. wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Gameplay? People who think 5th ( or 2nd/3rd ) was better are wearing rose tinted glasses
There were plenty of issues but what I think some people including myself miss (other than the nostalgia) was the positioning and development aspect of the game. Your first turn never involved a charge into combat in your opponents deployment while reaching for a deck of cards and a pick n mix scoop of dice.


I won't litigate the issue, because we could go for 20 pages on it, but out of curiosity have you been able to play 9th much?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/09 12:45:45


   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 Daedalus81 wrote:
A.T. wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Gameplay? People who think 5th ( or 2nd/3rd ) was better are wearing rose tinted glasses
There were plenty of issues but what I think some people including myself miss (other than the nostalgia) was the positioning and development aspect of the game. Your first turn never involved a charge into combat in your opponents deployment while reaching for a deck of cards and a pick n mix scoop of dice.


I won't litigate the issue, because we could go for 20 pages on it, but out of curiosity have you been able to play 9th much?



You can pretty easily put together an army of space marines with the innate ability to execute an army-wide turn 1 charge should they go first. it's less rampant than it was mid-8th when you could deep strike and still move after deep striking, but it is way more possible than in older editions.

personally though, I'm of the opinion that a lot of people just don't remember fifth and how many turns it generally took a game of fifth to actually resolve. The real 'kill all your gak turn 1 before you get to do anything" is still and has always been long range shooting armies, and those one hundred percent existed in fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth edition. They've never been weaker, and turn 1 tempo assault armies in 9th are theoretically possible...but extremely impractical because you're basically giving yourself a 50% chance of a huge advantage and a 50% chance of a nearly guaranteed loss.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wayniac wrote:

On the rules front I think they have already, this early in the edition, started to blatantly show codex creep and signs that they are going to do the same thing they did that started to bloat 8th and ruined 7th . In fact I would say that they just doubled down on all the problem points for 9th.


Uh huh uh huh uh huh tons of codex creep that's why of the codexes they've released so far, there's *checks notes* one pulling above a 55% wr, one at a 43% wr, and the rest sitting squarely at 48-52%.

Loooooooooooootsa creep, yes sir, none of those 8th edition books stand a chance, certainly the first, second, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh highest winrate factions are not using older 'dexes. factions like Harlequins and Sisters of Battle stand no chance against the 9th ed dex juggernauts and codexes released in the first quarter of eighth like adeptus mechanicus and daemons, fahgeddabouddit, the creep has crooped and they are dunzo.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/09 13:00:26


"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
Fixture of Dakka





the_scotsman wrote:
You can pretty easily put together an army of space marines with the innate ability to execute an army-wide turn 1 charge should they go first. it's less rampant than it was mid-8th when you could deep strike and still move after deep striking, but it is way more possible than in older editions.


For sure though not necessarily a winning strategy.

personally though, I'm of the opinion that a lot of people just don't remember fifth and how many turns it generally took a game of fifth to actually resolve. The real 'kill all your gak turn 1 before you get to do anything" is still and has always been long range shooting armies, and those one hundred percent existed in fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth edition. They've never been weaker, and turn 1 tempo assault armies in 9th are theoretically possible...but extremely impractical because you're basically giving yourself a 50% chance of a huge advantage and a 50% chance of a nearly guaranteed loss.


*shudders from memories playing against T'au* I recall making sure there were towers on the board so I could at least deploy my havocs somewhere that might let them survive to shoot if I didn't go first.


   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




I think creep's less of an issue than bloat.

8th undoubtedly had power creep - but the real issue was going to "oh and you need Vigilus" and then "oh you definitely need Psychic Awakening".

So for example it sort of rankles that I don't have the Strife stuff in the DE codex. But if I'm honest - I don't have the stuff to play full wych cults, its not something I've ever had more than a passing fancy in, and frankly I prefer the other cults than Strife anyway. Am I missing out on super-super death Succubus? Perhaps, but I'll get over it.

By contrast, I feel the above were essentially mandatory purchases for GSC. If you didn't have those bonus rules, you were obviously worse, and being a nerfed faction, you needed all the help you could get.

It seems like the 9th codexes are well balanced - partly because, cue memes, it does seem to be the most play-tested edition ever. If as some testers hint at, there's a broad outline for all the factions floating around (even if it won't be out for another 12+ months), the game could enjoy a 2 year or so golden age.

Unfortunately I think bloat must inevitably end it - because GW have to sell you things. And I'm not sure sidegrades are never overly attractive, even if the models are good.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





the_scotsman wrote:
personally though, I'm of the opinion that a lot of people just don't remember fifth and how many turns it generally took a game of fifth to actually resolve. The real 'kill all your gak turn 1 before you get to do anything" is still and has always been long range shooting armies, and those one hundred percent existed in fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth edition.
In 5th edition it was considered even, if not advantageous to deploy second.
Counter-deployment system, high cover saves, limited and often fairly immobile heavy slots, armour facings, and armour rules all factored into this - the second player could be sure to obscure their heavy tank from lascannons or railguns, but might also use it as cover in its own right against plasma weapons for instance. Though the objectives also disproportionately favoured the second player.

But 5th did also get stuck between two competing areas of rules change and codex creep. Transports were flaming coffins of death in 4th so GW made them cheaper, then 5th made them more durable, and then they also started making heavy weapons cheaper to deal with them. Firepower just ramped up and up, not helped by Cruddace and his early guard codex setting the standard for gunline excess.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Tyel wrote:
I think creep's less of an issue than bloat.


I'll agree to this. Here's hoping Book of Rust was a bit of a flop.

   
Made in us
Grumpy Longbeard





washington state USA

LOL @Mezmorki

I think you know where i am on this one. from 3rd -5th i played the GAK out of 40K getting in on average 3-5 games every weekend usually on the same day (that's 2 hours per game plus down time you can do the math).

with the current incarnation i have stopped following the game entirely and have gone back to playing 5th ed with a few houserules with friends.

GW has never got the rules right as you know with your prohammer project. they had some really great rules in one edition only to toss them out in the next edition when fixing some un-related issue.

The game has gone up and down with popularity and editions. the main thing driving the concept that FLG is pushing right now is the mainstreaming of the game and IP through the modern age of information sharing/social media and all the different markets the IP is being expanded into. this board is an example of the old way. this is all we had for online discussion back between 3rd-7th.


Will 9th be as big once everybody gets to actually full on gaming levels again? before 10th ed drops and changes everything again in a couple years? hard to say, i mean i remember when GW said 8th ed was going to be the "last" living edition that would just get periodic updates.

Like others have said it depends on how you define it.

To me 9th edition is the second worst the game has ever been (after 6th) as far as rules and mechanics go especially when i can play so many different non GW games out there that are better.

Until some market change causes serious damage to GWs ability to make a profit i do not see their behavior changing anytime soon. who knows maybe in 5 years they will only be selling STL files for the minis for you to print on your own. so perhaps the idea of expanding into different markets is the way they see staying alive in the future business model.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/09 14:01:08




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
Lead-Footed Trukkboy Driver





From a player base perspective in my area, GW products have been in a fairly consistent golden age since 8th. New players all the time, vast explosion in the number of players. However, I wouldn't necessarily say it is entirely a 40k golden age. AOS, especially in the last two years, has entered boom town territory and is siphoning off veteran and new players alike in my area.

From a broader cultural perspective, I'd say this is the single greatest "golden age" that has existed in the history of the company. I have played warhammer fantasy, 40k, battlefleet gothic, etc. for 20+ years now, and I have never run into people who were aware of 40k (even vaguely) who didn't actually play 40k/lotr/etc. or frequented the comic/hobby stores. Now I run into people who are aware of it but are not part of the tabletop wargaming culture. I have no doubt that a huge part of that is Warhammer total war and, to a lesser extent, Space Marine, Dawn of War, etc. But it's also online content like the Astartes series, popularity of 40k at cosplay/comicon events (which themselves have grown over the past decade). I wouldn't say it is anywhere near going mainstream quite yet, but I've never seen anything like its brand recognition that it currently enjoys.

Active armies, still collecting and painting First and greatest love - Orks, Orks, and more Orks largest pile of shame, so many tanks unassembled most complete and painted beautiful models, couldn't resist the swarm will consume all
Armies in disrepair: nothing new since 5th edition oh how I want to revive, but mostly old fantasy demons and some glorious Soul Grinders in need of love 
   
Made in de
Nurgle Chosen Marine on a Palanquin




I think 40K is in a very good spot right now, rules and balance are the best they've ever been, but the game is still not very deep concerning tactics (still deeper than before though).
There seem to be some problems building up though, which were thought to be left behind when 8th started:
- Rising prices: when 8th started GW put in many efforts for cheap starterboxes and deals, they didn't lower prices, but they gave you some good deals, nowadays these deals feel more like they're using fomo more than anything else and all start collectings have been made more expensive
- Tournament Edition: the eternal war missions are better than any prior versions, however, there's only eternal war missions left and they're still only interesting if you're new in the game or play tournaments, there's little in there for narrative players (even most of the crusade missions are eternal war missions with little variation), I hope we get proper missions back with asymmetrical design or a strong focus on the narrative.
- The 40K App was and is a desaster. They tried to react to people wishing for a move to digital rules but totally failed.
- No models, no rules: yes, due to legends it's not so much a problem so far, but looking at the miserable Plague Marine or Blightlord datasheet this could build up to really discourage building "your dudes",
- combine that with new sets having very limited options or monopose models. There are perfect sets in the range like Ork Boyz or nobz or the CSM Terminator Lord and then there are kits like the Deathshroud where you have to rely on 3rd party producers after the first 3 models if you don't want clones.

This all sounds pretty negative, but so far all of these problems are on a small scale and can be fixed. As I said, 40K really made a jump the last 3 years and is in a good position, but they really have to be careful.
   
Made in us
Brainy Zoanthrope




North Carolina

the_scotsman wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wayniac wrote:

On the rules front I think they have already, this early in the edition, started to blatantly show codex creep and signs that they are going to do the same thing they did that started to bloat 8th and ruined 7th . In fact I would say that they just doubled down on all the problem points for 9th.


Uh huh uh huh uh huh tons of codex creep that's why of the codexes they've released so far, there's *checks notes* one pulling above a 55% wr, one at a 43% wr, and the rest sitting squarely at 48-52%.

Loooooooooooootsa creep, yes sir, none of those 8th edition books stand a chance, certainly the first, second, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh highest winrate factions are not using older 'dexes. factions like Harlequins and Sisters of Battle stand no chance against the 9th ed dex juggernauts and codexes released in the first quarter of eighth like adeptus mechanicus and daemons, fahgeddabouddit, the creep has crooped and they are dunzo.



Lol, c'mon Scotsman, you more than anybody have posted about manufactured discontent, which is 100% true. No, those new armies may not be winning handily, but GW continues to throw more bells and whistles and rules layered on rules that playing an actual 8th codex feels like Indexhammer. Yes, some armies can still stack up winning lists. And duh, late 8th books like PA Harlequins and SoB can stack up with 9th, nobody's saying otherwise. But the creep from, say, 8e Eldar to 9e Dark Angels is 100% a thing, you're just being contrarian if you deny it.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Sgt. Cortez wrote:

- Tournament Edition: the eternal war missions are better than any prior versions, however, there's only eternal war missions left and they're still only interesting if you're new in the game or play tournaments, there's little in there for narrative players (even most of the crusade missions are eternal war missions with little variation), I hope we get proper missions back with asymmetrical design or a strong focus on the narrative.




You should check the crusade books there are some slightly more asymmetrical missions out there. I haven't see the DG or Rust missions though.


   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wayniac wrote:

On the rules front I think they have already, this early in the edition, started to blatantly show codex creep and signs that they are going to do the same thing they did that started to bloat 8th and ruined 7th . In fact I would say that they just doubled down on all the problem points for 9th.


Uh huh uh huh uh huh tons of codex creep that's why of the codexes they've released so far, there's *checks notes* one pulling above a 55% wr, one at a 43% wr, and the rest sitting squarely at 48-52%.

Loooooooooooootsa creep, yes sir, none of those 8th edition books stand a chance, certainly the first, second, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh highest winrate factions are not using older 'dexes. factions like Harlequins and Sisters of Battle stand no chance against the 9th ed dex juggernauts and codexes released in the first quarter of eighth like adeptus mechanicus and daemons, fahgeddabouddit, the creep has crooped and they are dunzo.



Lol, c'mon Scotsman, you more than anybody have posted about manufactured discontent, which is 100% true. No, those new armies may not be winning handily, but GW continues to throw more bells and whistles and rules layered on rules that playing an actual 8th codex feels like Indexhammer. Yes, some armies can still stack up winning lists. And duh, late 8th books like PA Harlequins and SoB can stack up with 9th, nobody's saying otherwise. But the creep from, say, 8e Eldar to 9e Dark Angels is 100% a thing, you're just being contrarian if you deny it.


Some of the early 8th codexes back when they were basically doing copy/pastehammer to get the first few books out definitely do feel super gakky. But in my opinion right now, the 2.0 marines through PA was the 'rules bloat/excess' period, and the new codexes if anything are trimming that back somewhat.

Things the 9th books have been removing or reducing:

1) Hyper-reliable deep strike out of charge

Blood Angels lost it, Space Wolves lost it, Dark Angels lost it, Deathwatch lost it, Necrons lost it, Drukhari lost it as an army-wide thing (they used to have blanket 58% chance to get in off deep strike army wide starting turn 2)

2) Super crazy aura hammer and some excessive die rolling in general

Chapter Master went from a CP upgrade to a points upgrade and went from rerolling everything within 6 to rerolling everything for one unit and rerolling 1s for CORE within 6. Necrons have like 5 core units. Drukhari never had crazy auras before, but now also have CORE to contend with. Changes to FNP (they've removed it as a blanket army wide thing on 2 factions already) further help with reducing the die rolling bloat

3) open ended strats you can just use to give anything crazy combat power

anything that double fights or double shoots is now unit-locked and often also subfaction-locked, which means GW can actually have a balance lever to reign it in. hit and wound mods are locked to -1/+1 now.

4) Ability to use the CP resource to artificially make units way more powerful is greatly reduced.

Unit upgrades via stratagems for units is being replaced in favor of making them cost points, making them more balanceable than before

5) durability is being added (and in more interesting ways to break up the profiles of useful weapons) in addition to lethality.

I love the fact that since PA, gw has introduced:

-widespread "+1 to save" items introducing 1+ armor save models
-Models that can only be wounded on an X+
- "- damage" abilities
- 'only x number of wounds per phase' units
-Reworked res protocols

^that is FANTASTIC for the game overall, and some of the ways in which they've been introduced have been really excellent. Dreadnoughts having a -1 to damage ability at the same time as all marines go to W2 standard is absolutely great, gives a good, organic toolset to make your defenses more diverse and makes it harder to 'solve' the meta and find a single best offensive profile to run.

we've had 3 factions who at least have a part of their identity in 'durable' and all three of them use wildly different defensive mechanics and have wildly different weaponry that you want to use to attack them. The game has needed this addition FOREVER, EVERY EDITION has had one single best general 'type' of weapon and now, finally, they're getting that they can't rely on a single hit/wound/save system to determine how everything does or does not survive incoming attacks.

Late 8th books can stack up with 9th books, and mid 8th books, and early 8th books - admech was what...third in 8th? And there were so few changes from the index I literally bought the datacards and used a pen to update my index, there was like 5 changes to statlines.

The approach GW is taking with codexes in 9th is night and day better than the approach they took with the post-codex 8th content. Night and day. The worst thing they can do at this point is fail to carve off and discard the worst excesses of PA when they get around to the factions that are the most able to abuse it to win.

"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
Brainy Zoanthrope




North Carolina

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

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wayniac wrote:

On the rules front I think they have already, this early in the edition, started to blatantly show codex creep and signs that they are going to do the same thing they did that started to bloat 8th and ruined 7th . In fact I would say that they just doubled down on all the problem points for 9th.


Uh huh uh huh uh huh tons of codex creep that's why of the codexes they've released so far, there's *checks notes* one pulling above a 55% wr, one at a 43% wr, and the rest sitting squarely at 48-52%.

Loooooooooooootsa creep, yes sir, none of those 8th edition books stand a chance, certainly the first, second, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh highest winrate factions are not using older 'dexes. factions like Harlequins and Sisters of Battle stand no chance against the 9th ed dex juggernauts and codexes released in the first quarter of eighth like adeptus mechanicus and daemons, fahgeddabouddit, the creep has crooped and they are dunzo.



Lol, c'mon Scotsman, you more than anybody have posted about manufactured discontent, which is 100% true. No, those new armies may not be winning handily, but GW continues to throw more bells and whistles and rules layered on rules that playing an actual 8th codex feels like Indexhammer. Yes, some armies can still stack up winning lists. And duh, late 8th books like PA Harlequins and SoB can stack up with 9th, nobody's saying otherwise. But the creep from, say, 8e Eldar to 9e Dark Angels is 100% a thing, you're just being contrarian if you deny it.


Some of the early 8th codexes back when they were basically doing copy/pastehammer to get the first few books out definitely do feel super gakky. But in my opinion right now, the 2.0 marines through PA was the 'rules bloat/excess' period, and the new codexes if anything are trimming that back somewhat.

Things the 9th books have been removing or reducing:

1) Hyper-reliable deep strike out of charge

Blood Angels lost it, Space Wolves lost it, Dark Angels lost it, Deathwatch lost it, Necrons lost it, Drukhari lost it as an army-wide thing (they used to have blanket 58% chance to get in off deep strike army wide starting turn 2)

2) Super crazy aura hammer and some excessive die rolling in general

Chapter Master went from a CP upgrade to a points upgrade and went from rerolling everything within 6 to rerolling everything for one unit and rerolling 1s for CORE within 6. Necrons have like 5 core units. Drukhari never had crazy auras before, but now also have CORE to contend with. Changes to FNP (they've removed it as a blanket army wide thing on 2 factions already) further help with reducing the die rolling bloat

3) open ended strats you can just use to give anything crazy combat power

anything that double fights or double shoots is now unit-locked and often also subfaction-locked, which means GW can actually have a balance lever to reign it in. hit and wound mods are locked to -1/+1 now.

4) Ability to use the CP resource to artificially make units way more powerful is greatly reduced.

Unit upgrades via stratagems for units is being replaced in favor of making them cost points, making them more balanceable than before

5) durability is being added (and in more interesting ways to break up the profiles of useful weapons) in addition to lethality.

I love the fact that since PA, gw has introduced:

-widespread "+1 to save" items introducing 1+ armor save models
-Models that can only be wounded on an X+
- "- damage" abilities
- 'only x number of wounds per phase' units
-Reworked res protocols

^that is FANTASTIC for the game overall, and some of the ways in which they've been introduced have been really excellent. Dreadnoughts having a -1 to damage ability at the same time as all marines go to W2 standard is absolutely great, gives a good, organic toolset to make your defenses more diverse and makes it harder to 'solve' the meta and find a single best offensive profile to run.

we've had 3 factions who at least have a part of their identity in 'durable' and all three of them use wildly different defensive mechanics and have wildly different weaponry that you want to use to attack them. The game has needed this addition FOREVER, EVERY EDITION has had one single best general 'type' of weapon and now, finally, they're getting that they can't rely on a single hit/wound/save system to determine how everything does or does not survive incoming attacks.

Late 8th books can stack up with 9th books, and mid 8th books, and early 8th books - admech was what...third in 8th? And there were so few changes from the index I literally bought the datacards and used a pen to update my index, there was like 5 changes to statlines.

The approach GW is taking with codexes in 9th is night and day better than the approach they took with the post-codex 8th content. Night and day. The worst thing they can do at this point is fail to carve off and discard the worst excesses of PA when they get around to the factions that are the most able to abuse it to win.


Okay, fair points, I agree with basically all of this. I just hope they do better on consistency than they've ever done before as well (mostly good signs on that so far, minus the Charadon crap).
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






Don't get me wrong - the entire concept of a codex release roll out where they go one at a time and prioritize factions that have an upcoming model release to coincide with the codex rather than the factions that need the attention the most is absolutely still manufactured discontent marketing.

All I'm disagreeing with is the fact that there's an escalation going on with the 9th dexes. If anything, what we're seeing right now is a de-escalation from the period of egregiously sloppy, utterly imbalanced, thrown together cash grab garbage that was the entire 2.0-PA period.

Someone did a much more thorough, much higher quality job with the early codex books of 9th (and hopefully all of them) than they did with the early codex books of 8th. I suspect the early codex books of 8th were the result of heavy crunch because they spent a TON of their development time making the index profiles for every single unit in existence, and only around Guard did they start to finally catch their breath, while with 9th they had that entire period where the monthly book was something an intern could have tossed together in 20 minutes, plus all the downtime created by the pandemic to thoroughly work through and actually test the 9th dexes.

"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
Ork Boy Hangin' off a Trukk





 Insectum7 wrote:
Golden age was 4th Ed, imo. 2nd was great, but it was a strange game overall. 4th Ed was when the game was most mature as a war game and the customization in the codexes was at it's peak.


+1 The 4th Ed. Rule book was the last book to include more realistic abstract terrain rules (instead of true line of sight), actual templates for creating bunkers/scenery, tips for customizing and kit bashing models (something GW does not seem to encourage much anymore), kill team and campaign rules (today’s Kill Team and Crusade are not new concepts folks. . . ), and introduced a simple set of universal special rules that worked well for all factions. I like 2nd a lot but that is mostly from nostalgia. 4th felt more like a tabletop wargame should to me.

Apocalypse/Kill Team/40K: Orks, Imperial Guard, Eldar, Space Wolves, Necrons
AOS: Ogor Mawtribes, Sons of Behemat (using Mantic/3rd party giants)
Blood Bowl: Skaven, Humans, Orcs, Goblins, Dark Elves, Wood Elves, Dwarves, Chaos Dwarves, Undead, Necromantic, Snotlings, Vampires, Lizardmen 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Grumblewartz wrote:
From a player base perspective in my area, GW products have been in a fairly consistent golden age since 8th. New players all the time, vast explosion in the number of players. However, I wouldn't necessarily say it is entirely a 40k golden age. AOS, especially in the last two years, has entered boom town territory and is siphoning off veteran and new players alike in my area.

From a broader cultural perspective, I'd say this is the single greatest "golden age" that has existed in the history of the company. I have played warhammer fantasy, 40k, battlefleet gothic, etc. for 20+ years now, and I have never run into people who were aware of 40k (even vaguely) who didn't actually play 40k/lotr/etc. or frequented the comic/hobby stores. Now I run into people who are aware of it but are not part of the tabletop wargaming culture. I have no doubt that a huge part of that is Warhammer total war and, to a lesser extent, Space Marine, Dawn of War, etc. But it's also online content like the Astartes series, popularity of 40k at cosplay/comicon events (which themselves have grown over the past decade). I wouldn't say it is anywhere near going mainstream quite yet, but I've never seen anything like its brand recognition that it currently enjoys.


I have to agree on warhammer having a much wider reach as far as culture goes, many people who wouldn't have ever known of it do now. That said product placement doesn't matter when all it ends up as is a novelty to most. Building, painting, time you need to play the game and over all the heavy cost to play the game turns off most people as soon as they look into it. The amount of people I'd talked to who would start but say " hell no " once they view the cost and time spent to do so are massive. Granted that is just my take on it and what I've experienced. To me, some of that is a huge red flag. So yeah they can end up very well known but it won't translate into the main game unless they stop making their models out of solid gold and actually put real effort into a sustained, good edition. The burn and churn can only go so long, and without fresh blood by a large margain the system won't just keep pressing forward. The whales of today won't be so forever and normal folk see what we all know, it's way too pricey and only getting more so.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





40k isn't cheap to be sure, but I always think the complaints about it lack a certain perspective.

Look at the cost of parts and tools to restore a car, or owning a motorcycle or sailboat. Heck, go look up the price of a good revolver. As hobbies go 40k isn't anywhere near the top of the price list.

   
Made in us
Steady Space Marine Vet Sergeant




San Jose, CA

Yeah, dont even get me started on restoring a car(been there done that and currently doing it). 40k is my least expensive hobby. Encroaching on Golf, but not there yet.
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Gnarlly wrote:


+1 The 4th Ed. Rule book was the last book to include more realistic abstract terrain rules (instead of true line of sight), actual templates for creating bunkers/scenery, tips for customizing and kit bashing models (something GW does not seem to encourage much anymore), kill team and campaign rules (today’s Kill Team and Crusade are not new concepts folks. . . ), and introduced a simple set of universal special rules that worked well for all factions. I like 2nd a lot but that is mostly from nostalgia. 4th felt more like a tabletop wargame should to me.


First off- respect your opinion, especially the part about "feeling like a wargame should" - While I love 9th, I do relate to this feeling; I wouldn't describe 9th as Wargame anymore either- Crusade makes it closer to something I would describe as an analogue MMORPG/ RTS game. I love that- I think it's a better fit for what I've always looked for in a game than a more conventional "Wargame."

If I wanted a wargame, I'd try matched play, and like many other Dakkanaughts, I might be disappointed.

So yes, I'll give a shout out to all the books that came before which tried (and failed) to do as good a job as Crusade has at being more than a mere wargame. The first BRB Kill Team was AWESOME, and I still prefer the way it handled upgrades as actual equipment; I've made my peace with equipment strategems, but I do prefer equipment that just behaves like... Well, equipment.

But Crusade is orders of magnitude beyond those first few experimental steps that designers took in messing with the scale of the 40k Core game. And Crusade could only work with 9th's attention to the impacts of game size- it's not a big deal to run an escalation campaign when there are no mechanical differences between a 500 point match and a 3000 point match. But now, it affects the number of detachments you bring, the size of the table, the number of secondaries/ agendas you pick and the missions you play- and all of these factors have trickle-down consequences both for other rules interactions and for the narrative. All of these things create the environment in which the Crusade system can thrive; without this, escalation has a limited impact on how the game feels beyond, "Oh, I get to bring another unit of ______"

I only have the SM dex, the DW supplement and the DE dex so far, so I can't talk about the bespoke Crusade content from other books, but the Dark Eldar Codex really showcased the potential for Crusade- the Raid Point/ Territory system in that book... It was like buying a Codex and loving it as a Codex, but also finding within it a separate minigame which is just as good or BETTER than the game for which it is supplement. I'm serious- fighting in Commorragh against other DE combat patrols for territory to see who can become the most powerful crime lord is at least as much fun as standard 40k. I'd say it's harder to find players, but it isn't really; if you've got a DE army that's 2k points, you can supply 5-8 players with all the models they need to play in your Drukhari-munda league.

I suspect that the DA supplement comes close in allowing you to play against the Fallen in a similar way. It almost makes me want to buy the DA supplement to see if there's more to the DA vs Fallen minigame than what was previewed on Warcom.

As for a few of the other things you mentioned: the bunker templates and such- those were cool; I liked them, and I'd like to see them return to WD. But there are a few things here: at the time that stuff was available, GW's boxed terrain offerings were nowhere near what they are now. Those templates could never compete with any of the terrain in the range, and of course it comes at a cost... But damn it makes a table look good. Also, at the time, there wasn't a community of e-start-ups doing paper templates like there is now.

And as for conversions: you're definitely correct that they don't provide as much source material for this as they used to- I had the Rogue Trader era 40k Compendium with the famous deodorant battle skimmer in it. But this sort of thing is still there if you're looking for it. That same DE dex I was raving about for it's Crusade content also gave us 6 new units without models. I think I'm going to mash-up the extra shard carbines from the scourges with the splinter rifles of my Kabalites to convert a unit of Trueborn. In time, I'll do up all 6 units, but I'm a Crusader, so my army has a lot of growing today before I can field Master HQ's and their favoured retinues.

If you want some additional conversion inspiration, I'd recommend the Realms of Slaanesh article in WD 461- if you haven't seen this yet, and you like Slaanesh or the Emperor's Children, it's pretty amazing, though it does stop short of detailed "How-to" pages, which is a shame. But it's pretty inspirational.

Just my two cents- Like I said, I respect the opinion, and I get it. I just like to show off the other side- it isn't going to be everyone's taste; I get that. But like I said earlier in this thread, I can't say it's my golden age yet, but it is on track to become that if they keep it up as they have so far.



   
Made in ca
Jinking Ravenwing Land Speeder Pilot



Canada

Nostalgia is powerful. For me, 2nd Ed circa 96 to 97 was a Golden Age (when I started playing) followed by early 5th Edition (when my son started playing). Parking emotions, if we consider a timeframe to be a Golden Age based on the positive energy flowing around the game then, outside of General Discussion, it is possible that we are in about as Golden an Age as you could hope for during a pandemic.

8th Edition was great with its admitted moments of wonkiness. It did, though, start to spiral towards the end. Psychic Awakening seemed like a fever dream rules wise, not to mention a cynical cash grab.

The 9th Edition rules are, to me, an improved 8th Edition with Terrain and Mission meaning something. The 9th Edition Codexes, as Scotsman points out in good detail above, do seem to be a more balanced set of books harnessing the lessons of 8th Edition. The games and tourneys that I have played in (between lockdowns) have had great variety in terms of Top Gun.

Will 9th be a Golden Age looking back in twenty years? It will seem more Golden than 4th, 6th and 7th for sure.


All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





The Newman wrote:
40k isn't cheap to be sure, but I always think the complaints about it lack a certain perspective.

Look at the cost of parts and tools to restore a car, or owning a motorcycle or sailboat. Heck, go look up the price of a good revolver. As hobbies go 40k isn't anywhere near the top of the price list.


I look at it in the cost of other games, this is far and away more expensive. Restoring a car this is not, and not even everyone does this as a hobby alone. As well the car restoration is done not only out of love but to build something of quality that can really rise in value, outside the outrageous cost of GW games it doesn't actually value up. Nor does it do as much for you as say a motorcycle or sailboat. I'd say as well the revolver might be more expensive than one army but that isn't true for all factions nor does it equal a couple or a few armies.

As much as people want to go round and round GW stuff is expensive and only growing more so each release.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Nostalgia is powerful. For me, 2nd Ed circa 96 to 97 was a Golden Age (when I started playing) followed by early 5th Edition (when my son started playing). Parking emotions, if we consider a timeframe to be a Golden Age based on the positive energy flowing around the game then, outside of General Discussion, it is possible that we are in about as Golden an Age as you could hope for during a pandemic.

8th Edition was great with its admitted moments of wonkiness. It did, though, start to spiral towards the end. Psychic Awakening seemed like a fever dream rules wise, not to mention a cynical cash grab.

The 9th Edition rules are, to me, an improved 8th Edition with Terrain and Mission meaning something. The 9th Edition Codexes, as Scotsman points out in good detail above, do seem to be a more balanced set of books harnessing the lessons of 8th Edition. The games and tourneys that I have played in (between lockdowns) have had great variety in terms of Top Gun.

Will 9th be a Golden Age looking back in twenty years? It will seem more Golden than 4th, 6th and 7th for sure.



I think its funny you think PA was the hiccup in the goodness of 40k, PA was what they want 40k to be and we'll see soon enough with 9th. IT isn't the bad it's what they want it to be for us, cynical cash grab on rule bloat. Time will tell but considering they proved me right on what PA would shake out to be, I am pretty confident they will again. It's the nature of this beast.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/11 06:20:26


 
   
Made in hk
Longtime Dakkanaut





This is a golden era. Player skill is more important. I have seen good players play armies against "bad matchup" armies and they still win. And skew lists are less of a thing. You don't really see that many skew lists (except maybe something like Magnus plus Mortarion).

Almost all armies have HQs, troops, etc etc. Very few army lists try and go overboard and end up being a meta tounament beating list.

The lists no longer play themselves. A good player can take a "subpar" faction he is familiar with and still have a decent chance at beating a poor player piloting an internet list.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: