Switch Theme:

How Do You Feel About the State of 40k?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Poll
How do you feel about the State of 40k?
Very Positive - the game is in a great place
Positive - the game is good but could improve
Neutral - don't feel strongly one way or another
Negative - something about the state of 40k is bad
Very Negative - 40k is in an awful place right now
I just like to vote on polls but don't have an opinion

View results
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 put "negative" but not "very negative."

I generally enjoy 40k, but I enjoy it less than many of the other games I play and would always play those in preference if I could.

I don't like competition, and Crusade doesn't do it for me as a narrative system. I find myself building my own narrative campaigns anyways, using Crusade as the progression system... but narrative campaigns don't always need a progression system anyways, so it doesn't even help with those.

As a game, 40k lacks what I want from a game, which is the ability to narratively parse the storyline and tell it from stem to stern. This is especially notable with tanks - consider the case where 3 Lascannon shots leave a Russ with 1 wound left, and then a boltgun shot kills it.

Who killed it? With what sort of hit? Did the crew survive? Was it a morale issue and a concern for the company commander (i.e. the crew bailed out of an otherwise perfectly good tank) or was the tank severely damaged somehow and I need to write a narrative about working with the Mechanicus to secure a replacement or repair?

Crusade would award the XP (where relevant) to the boltgun-armed Marine. Is that really the case? Should the Marine player write about the heroic Intercessor that put a bolt-round through the driver's hatch and detonated the ammunition somehow? Or really was it the lascannons that killed it, and the fact that the last wound done by a boltgun was simply the last shot taken in a series of "simultaneous" events irrelevant?

40k does not give me the mechanism to parse that narrative, yet GW keeps forcing in process-oriented narrative mechanics despite it being an outcome-oriented game. I foresee that this will continue to get worse.
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







I put "very negative". Everything that's been wrong with the game since the scale creep started at the end of 5th is still wrong, and since the community's largely composed of people who started post-8th and have been fed exaggerated horror stories about unkillable deathstars and OP formation bonuses there's a pervasive myth running around that GW's somehow improved because they release nonfunctional/untested rules slightly more frequently than they used to, so GW's got no incentive to get any better since their PR has gotten so much better without them having to improve the game at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 kirotheavenger wrote:
I think this is an interesting demonstrating in the different opinions of polls vs posts.
In the poll, positive outweights negative 2:1, in the comments it's more like 50/50...


Personally I'm interested in the fact that we're getting posts saying "positive, only I just like the minis releases and don't like the game much" or "positive, but you still have to write your own rules for stuff" or "positive, but IGOUGO is still killing the game." I'd be interested in the results of a more targeted poll asking just about the rules and see if people still say "everything's great in spite of the fact that the rules still don't work."

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/21 14:21:58


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
Sneaky Striking Scorpion




North Carolina

 the_scotsman wrote:
Overall, I think the 9th edition codexes are a massive improvement over 8th edition in the amount of effort GW is putting in.

In 8th, they almost totally relied on the simple stupid manufactured discontent of having factions that had their full rules playing vs factions that had 50% of your rules, so your codex is obviously going to be an improvement...you're going to get your full fething rules, and you wont have to fight vs people who get chapter tactics, warlord traits, relics and stratagems while you...don't...

In 9th, theyre actually significantly redesigning each faction's stats and abilities and I don't think a single faction hasn't been restructured in a significant way. The only thing that's frustrating is their priorities of who needs a codex the most is just....bonkers.

Currently we have the barest tiniest hint of GSC being one of the more distant upcoming books, but otherwise like...Admech were already doing alright, admittedly their original model range is just fething screaming for rules updates but they had their new model wave pumping in new life, and sisters already have "the 9th edition super special extra rule" for crying out loud and were the last 8th ed codex. Orks were a late 8th 'dex as well, and while they have some problems, have consistently had multiple styles of viable builds to play around with, I have never felt bad bringing orks since the codex came out.

Compare any of those three armies' current state with the state of fething Eldar, or Tau, or Guard, or the actual Tyranid codex (not talking the FW options people are occasionally riding to a sneaky tourney win), or GSC, and the situation is fething DIRE. Everything is still busted as hell from the original 9th ed points pass when for some reason gw decided they had to collossally smack down all the armies that were structurally the worst at 9th, and most of them (guard, eldar, tsons, and nids) are playing almost unchanged datasheets out of the indexes from 8th. I was looking at a Wraithknight out of curiosity the other day because someone said their stats were bad, and I did not REALIZE just how BAD THAT SITUATION WAS, like the big huge fuckoff cannon on a wraithknight is a freaking glorified twin lascannon, the full melee version of the thing is still A4 still WS3+ unlike the all-melee knight, and the version of the thing that gets just one big gun is like "2D6 shots S6 AP-2 D2, so like, a pair of super downgraded regular plasma cannons hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm SIXTY POINTS!!!"

There's a lot of units running around like that in the game. An eldar guardian is still +1BS, +1S on his gun, +2" movement compared to a guardsman, DOUBLE the point cost. An aberrant is still a completely naked no armor whatsoever Thunder Hammer terminator with no shock assault for like -5 points, every nid monster is still swinging like 4 WS4+ attacks, CSM GK and Tsons still have 1W... and they're like "Gotta get that Sisters codex out there though!"


Yup, nailed it. I have many armies (Eldar, Tyranids, Guard, Emperor's Children, Harlequins, Necrons). With the Necrons, when I play them even against the DE or DA or whatever player in my group, it's FUN because I feel like an equal player. With Harlequins, I get that feeling too but I feel bad running them because they beat up on the have-nots in my playgroup. With all the other books... it's just lacklustre. Lame. I have large model collections of all of those armies so I can min-max but I don't want to do that. I want to run the fluffy, cool lists that I can write for Necrons and not get the crap beat out of me.

I just can't. Looking at the 9e Codexes, they're SO GOOD. Looking at the core rules of the game, they're the best they've been in a long time. And yet, I still had to put my answer to the poll as "negative" because out of the $$$$ I have spent on my armies, only running 1 army is really bringing me joy right now.

Like you said, the Codex priorities are just kind of bizarre. I know GW's lead times are long enough that they can't exactly write codices to fix meta imbalances, but even if they just sequenced things similarly to how they did it in 8e, it would be better. Most of those armies you listed as being nonfunctional were early 8e codexes; you'd think they would get boosts relatively early in 9e! Instead, the only really early 8e books GW has prioritized are Admech (who didn't need it given that new model line) and DG (I can't begrudge them there). Throwing books at Orks and Sisters and SM to start the edition is just feelsbad to me.

If GW could just get their together the second half of this year, 9e could be massively salvaged. I'm hoping that'll be the case but I don't think I'm optimistic.
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





Karol wrote:
I think the game is better, and by a lot, then it was through out 8th. Specially as over all balance goes for multiple armies.

I think my own army is a lot more fun to play, then it was in 9th.

On the model side of things, I am more or less neutral. We didn't get any models in 8th, unless some limited stuff I will never be able to get is counted. This time we are suppose to get Crow, but considering him being in a big box and being power armoured, it is just as good as if the model has not existed.

All in all a lot more positive expiriance then 8th ed was, at any moment.


I feel you on Crowe trapped in a box; but so was Lelith (Piety and Pain released mid-late Feb); she preorders as a standalone this weekend.

True that we still don't have stand-alone Greater Possessed, Venom Crawlers, Obliterators or a Master of Possession- they haven't been very nice to chaos.
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
Overall, I think the 9th edition codexes are a massive improvement over 8th edition in the amount of effort GW is putting in.

In 8th, they almost totally relied on the simple stupid manufactured discontent of having factions that had their full rules playing vs factions that had 50% of your rules, so your codex is obviously going to be an improvement...you're going to get your full fething rules, and you wont have to fight vs people who get chapter tactics, warlord traits, relics and stratagems while you...don't...

In 9th, theyre actually significantly redesigning each faction's stats and abilities and I don't think a single faction hasn't been restructured in a significant way. The only thing that's frustrating is their priorities of who needs a codex the most is just....bonkers.

Currently we have the barest tiniest hint of GSC being one of the more distant upcoming books, but otherwise like...Admech were already doing alright, admittedly their original model range is just fething screaming for rules updates but they had their new model wave pumping in new life, and sisters already have "the 9th edition super special extra rule" for crying out loud and were the last 8th ed codex. Orks were a late 8th 'dex as well, and while they have some problems, have consistently had multiple styles of viable builds to play around with, I have never felt bad bringing orks since the codex came out.

Compare any of those three armies' current state with the state of fething Eldar, or Tau, or Guard, or the actual Tyranid codex (not talking the FW options people are occasionally riding to a sneaky tourney win), or GSC, and the situation is fething DIRE. Everything is still busted as hell from the original 9th ed points pass when for some reason gw decided they had to collossally smack down all the armies that were structurally the worst at 9th, and most of them (guard, eldar, tsons, and nids) are playing almost unchanged datasheets out of the indexes from 8th. I was looking at a Wraithknight out of curiosity the other day because someone said their stats were bad, and I did not REALIZE just how BAD THAT SITUATION WAS, like the big huge fuckoff cannon on a wraithknight is a freaking glorified twin lascannon, the full melee version of the thing is still A4 still WS3+ unlike the all-melee knight, and the version of the thing that gets just one big gun is like "2D6 shots S6 AP-2 D2, so like, a pair of super downgraded regular plasma cannons hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm SIXTY POINTS!!!"

There's a lot of units running around like that in the game. An eldar guardian is still +1BS, +1S on his gun, +2" movement compared to a guardsman, DOUBLE the point cost. An aberrant is still a completely naked no armor whatsoever Thunder Hammer terminator with no shock assault for like -5 points, every nid monster is still swinging like 4 WS4+ attacks, CSM GK and Tsons still have 1W... and they're like "Gotta get that Sisters codex out there though!"


Yup, nailed it. I have many armies (Eldar, Tyranids, Guard, Emperor's Children, Harlequins, Necrons). With the Necrons, when I play them even against the DE or DA or whatever player in my group, it's FUN because I feel like an equal player. With Harlequins, I get that feeling too but I feel bad running them because they beat up on the have-nots in my playgroup. With all the other books... it's just lacklustre. Lame. I have large model collections of all of those armies so I can min-max but I don't want to do that. I want to run the fluffy, cool lists that I can write for Necrons and not get the crap beat out of me.

I just can't. Looking at the 9e Codexes, they're SO GOOD. Looking at the core rules of the game, they're the best they've been in a long time. And yet, I still had to put my answer to the poll as "negative" because out of the $$$$ I have spent on my armies, only running 1 army is really bringing me joy right now.

Like you said, the Codex priorities are just kind of bizarre. I know GW's lead times are long enough that they can't exactly write codices to fix meta imbalances, but even if they just sequenced things similarly to how they did it in 8e, it would be better. Most of those armies you listed as being nonfunctional were early 8e codexes; you'd think they would get boosts relatively early in 9e! Instead, the only really early 8e books GW has prioritized are Admech (who didn't need it given that new model line) and DG (I can't begrudge them there). Throwing books at Orks and Sisters and SM to start the edition is just feelsbad to me.

If GW could just get their together the second half of this year, 9e could be massively salvaged. I'm hoping that'll be the case but I don't think I'm optimistic.


Yeah I love my orks but boy howdy do they not need a new book more than a ton of factions.

The thing that kills me is the 3 months of Space Wolves/Deathwatch/Blood Angels/Dark Angels supplements, when they had much more functional rules out of their free PDF update and minimal content in codex Space marines than any of Eldar/Tau/Guard/Nids/GSC have right now.

Eldar still have Marines 1.0 style chapter traits - 6++ FNP as the whole trait is the best core book eldar subfaction trait. You know, the one nobody took in Marines 1.0 and said was awful. Tau needed to have 8th ed overwatch and fall back and shoot stapled back onto them to even have a prayer in 9th and theyre repping like a 40% wr even with it. GSC still get no subfaction traits on literally 2/3s of the unit entries in their codex, and have several subfaction trait rules and relic rules busted by 9th ed (+2 to wound on one relic, move and shoot heavy weapons with bikes as 1/2 of one of their traits, etc)

Almost every busted-ass faction in the game could be fine right now if they'd just

1) have released a core CSM codex with get-you-by updoots for Tsons and DG
2) have included GK in the get-you-by pdfs
3) released codexes for tau/guard/eldar/gsc/nids instead of supplements for sw/da/ba/dw and the new DE codex.

"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
Terminator with Assault Cannon




San Jose, CA

Positive with a caveat, I despise the gamey aspects they've introduced. Strats should just be special abilities on datasheets, secondaries need to die a horrible commoragh death & kill half the re-rolls, the dice have spoken and deal with it.

The models are great
The lore is aight
The rules...well they're rules

Biggest thing is GW really needs to stop sucking the proverbial tourney dick!
   
Made in gb
Deadly Dire Avenger





I'm generally feeling very positive but I put myself down as just positive. I love the increased effort on internal and external balance, the more objective focused gameplay of 9th and where the edition looks to be heading. But whilst armies like GSC, Eldar and Tau are still languishing with codexes that have aged extremely badly I can't honestly say "everything is currently great". My very positive feeling is based on hope for the future and the track record of 9th to date in meeting those expectations rather than the games overall current state, which is that of a work in progress.
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran



London

I have still to get a game on the new smaller tables, so no idea game feel wise. Model wise nothing has changed for my armies (IG old, Deathwatch new ish, GSC kinda new), rules wise it isn't very balanced for them which turns me off big games but small narrative stuff should be fine.
   
Made in us
Wicked Ghast




So far, I'm really enjoying 9th edition. What I like is the way the missions are prioritized, the focus on core units vs non-core units, (I actually like this mechanic), and the new terrain rules. I play BA, Khorne Demons (and boy is Anggrath better now! still not great, but playable and fun!!!) space wolves, adeptus mechanicus, Tyranids, black legion, world eaters, and chaos knights, and my favorite army is a tie between Blood Angels and Chaos Knights.

It's a pretty wide range of "good" and "bad" armies but I seem to have a pretty consistent win some lose some game experience and have a lot of fun playing them.

What i would like to see improved is the communication from GW regarding the codex release schedule. I would love to see what the long-term plan is, and I'm sure the rest of the community would too.

Also, after a more recent discussion post, I'm not sure I like the mechanism of the Charadon style books anymore. At first, I didn't really have a problem with them and enjoyed them, but as someone who doesn't play Drukhari or Death Guard, the consideration brought out by others about how they don't like having to get another book for their complete rules does make a great deal make sense (Thank you Yukishiro for taking the time to legitimately answer my question instead of just assuming I was white-knighting and insulting me).

I still find value in the books for other reasons, so I don't mind buying them, but I'm not sure how much I like that model.

Overall, I'm positive. My real life is pretty rough, and I deal with a lot of "heavy" topics daily acting as an interim Grief Counselor and clinical cognitive behavioral therapist, while going to school for my PsyD, so what little time I get to relax and enjoy my hobby outside of my wife and daughter, I gladly take and tend to focus on the positives (which is why I have a reputation, if one at all, as a white knight).

Overall, I'm positive, but some things are needed, namely communication, to help give the players something to look forward to if you're one of those Black Legion or World Eaters players out there like me

The game is fun, it's a hobby that I enjoy and pulls me out of reality into a fantastic setting and a wonderfully valid excuse to hang out with friends. Ultimately, if I am asking for more out of my hobby, I'm placing the wrong expectations on my hobby.

YMMV

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/21 18:14:58


 
   
Made in gb
Dispassionate Imperial Judge






HATE Club, East London

Yeah, good but with some big caveats:

RULES
8/9ed is a way better ruleset, but it's already got too much bloat for me to keep track of it. Playing Warhammer competitively is silly, so Codex balance is irrelevant. The big issue for me here is that Matched or Crusade are both the standard ways to play and both require tons of homework and prep, and have colossal gaps in balance between people who just want to play a casual game and people who want to spend ages doing the homework. So, base rules: good, spread of rules: bad, amount of work required to play a game: really bad.

MODELS/RELEASES
Great! Models look lovely, though I miss true multi-part kits. The entire concept of 'supporting' particular factions is dumb, so I don't care if they release another Marine next or another Tyranid. Finecast was fine, but I'm glad they're releasing more cool plastic characters. All the outrage over limited releases and stocks also passes me by. I'm fine with just not having a model.

   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter





drbored wrote:
As it says in the title.

How do you feel about the state of Warhammer 40k as a game?

I'd like, if you would, to consider also the state of the model releases. Are you feeling positive about the state of the game and the way the models are coming out? Or do you feel negative about the state of the game and hope for change? This is not to say just the 'tournament meta' of the game, but everything around Warhammer 40k, from models to gameplay to update speed, etc.


I feel very negative about the state of the game.

It is mechanically unsatisfying to play, with everything feeling very sort of soft and mushy and "doesn't-die", and nothing really feeling effective or responsive except in accumulation. And then, because units can move, shoot, and assault freely, the game is very aggressive with few limits or tactical trade offs, and is over early as despite almost every weapon feeling mushy and ineffective
On top of that, we're at a level of "free variable rules" and formations-type crap that is only barely short of the free units 7th, and balance is astoundingly terrible.

I would say the downhill started when they came out with SM2.0 and the supplements. The supplements are terrible in every respect, and basically represent a return to the 7e-style of rules writing and motivation. 8th could get over the mechanical unsatisfaction by having really on-point balance until then.


I played 5e for a while recently, and it's astounding how much better 5e feels to play in general than 9e.




As far as model releases and release cycles:
I wish they would revert to the slower codex+models for a month release cycle. I'd rather wait longer for a codex for it to come with new units and kits rather than the way it is now, where rules come and go and it's easier to skip over a army for true updates.
The technical qualities of the models are very high, and aesthetically some of them look really good, but I'd really like to see new kits for the "old" big factions, and am pretty tired out on Space Marines. I have an enormous backlog of unpainted SM models, and I still haven't got ones that I want to get and really like, like the Repulsor Executioner, just because I feel swamped [and also disinclined to get something that will be a paperweight when I could get something that will see the table]

Really, though, I've redoubled my efforts on Flames of War and Legion, and have been thinking of taking up Dystopian Wars and resuming Dropzone Commander.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/05/21 18:47:50


Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades! 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





I generally like the direction most things are going, I just don't like the inequality some of the armies are seeing along the way.

Tau, CSM, Thousand Sons, Grey Knights. . . there's no reason they couldn't have gotten a few pre-codex updates to at least fix some of their glaring issues like 1 wound marines and no more fall back and shoot for Tau. Heck, even some point updates would have been nice.

I feel like their antiquated book distribution methodology has really shown why it's truly inferior to full digital. A digital ruleset would not care about global shipping issues, and adjustments could be made immediately without needing to wait for books to reach ports.
   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






I feel pretty negative about the state of the game but it is mostly rules and release structure. The models have never been better and there are lots of people playing so there is that.

If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot




On moon miranda.

For my own part, I haven't played much of late, and nothing about the current state of the rules really impresses me all that much to go out of my way to play currently. I've played some solo home games of 8th, but with all the gaming venues shut down playing has been difficult, and as far as I'm concerned the game was probably at its peak state of the last 4 editions ~summer/autumn of 2019 in terms of broad general viability and playability (not that it was perfect by any means), so picking up 9th hasn't been a huge imperative for solo home gaming when I can just stick to that. That may change in the future.

In broader terms, the new models are all gorgeous, I'm glad they're expanding on stuff like Sisters. GW's ability to put out beautiful plastic kits is absolutely unparalleled. I think more people than ever before are into 40k as a setting, and that's a good thing. My bigger issue is that the newer fluff and lore just doesn't do much for me or drive the interest it once did, the increasing Disneyfication in terms of managing 40k as an IP (with unique silly copyrightable but difficult to remember names for everything, every imagineable slice of IP being submarketed, etc) is turn-off, and it's gotten so big that I honestly just can't keep track of it all anymore

IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.

New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.  
   
Made in us
Hardened Veteran Guardsman





I haven't been able to play 9e yet, so my overall is "neutral", but I voted Negative as I'm not particularly optimistic about the way GW has handled 8e since the first few months passed, and I don't see 9e as improving things.

- Indexes were a great way to make sure no one had to play with a codex that simply was not made for the current edition (discontinued, excepting the Space Marines who got fresh codices/supplements shortly thereafter)
- The Community Survey was an excellent means to get in touch with their user base and implied that they wanted to actually hear from us rather than just our credit cards (did that even last a full year? I can only remember the one)
- The return of Regimental doctrines was something I dearly missed from the 3.5e-era codices (but they've been as hit-and-miss as ever. I'm willing to give GW a bit of a pass on this for the moment since we've only had a few 9e dexes come out, but I expect more of the same - a handful of strats/characters/relics, but little that truly changes the way the armies play)
- The Primaris refresh implied that GW was willing to redo entire lines, which was desperately needed for some factions (but years later, IG have bled damn near all of our different regiments with barely an upgrade sprue or Made to Order to show for it, and Eldar kits are still old enough to drink)
- FAQs promised to prevent broken things from staying broken for too long (This one I'll give GW - they haven't been the best, but they are still doing them at least)
- 8e allegedly being a "living edition" implied that the codex churn would be a thing of the past ()

Add to that the continued price increases, often baffling design/production choices, and increase in the number of kits that are monopose and/or appear intended for desk displays rather than tabletop play, and I just can't muster the excitement and optimism that I felt when 8e dropped.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Currently I'm Neutral, because I like the way the rules have gone for the most part (compared with 8th that is). Excepting Druhkari, most codices have been brought in line and had most of the egregious things removed (namely doubleshoots/fights).

The main issues I have (as others here also seem to have) are to do with codex rollouts and centerpiece models:

Centerpiece models just warp the gameplay, It just keeps stretching the design space of the game beyond what it can bear - especially with GW's unwillingness to have units greater then T8. I fully acknowledge this is about taste, but I despise herohammer and seeing named super characters almost every fight, and am currently guilty of having to bring my own as a counter to those characters.

The Codex rollouts have also just been bad. I'm a Salamander player - Marine supplements shouldn't be a thing, but they ESPECIALLY should not have been one of the first things on the codex rollouts. And if they were going to be one of the first things, they shouldn't have split them over the course of what they've done. I think it's fair that Marines got their codex first, they have the greatest market share of players - being first also generally dulls the army effectiveness over time by means of power creep/meta-familiarity.
But the way they've rolled out the Marine Supplements now is just.... why? If supplements were absolutely needed then it should've been (Marine Codex -> Literally every single other codex -> Supplements)

But as it is they've maximized the amount of dissatisfaction -
Non-Marines get to watch marine chapters get two rulesets before they get one
Players will have to deal with FoTM marines that end up taking advantage of whatever broken interactions come out of supplements
And Marine Players who enjoy specific chapters that have to wait for their supplements whilst other chapters already have their own
   
Made in nl
[DCM]
Secret Inquisitorial Eldar Xenexecutor






your mind

Negative for reasons stated by others already.

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Hard to pick one or the other. There are many positive aspects, and many negative ones. The base ruleset for the 9th is the best they've had in a while, maybe ever.

But there are lots of problems with the implementation, and they're being made much worse by the slow pace of getting out codexes, and the terrible decision to slow down the codex release in order to instead accommodate day-1 DLC nonsense. That terrible decision also contributes to the rules bloat that is becoming incredibly unwieldy even for veteran players, and is keeping newer players from getting a foothold because the sheer amonut of rules you need to grasp is becoming more and more absurd.

I chose neutral but my real opinion is more like very positive and very negative at the same time. The big frustration is that it feels like they have a really solid foundation, but they're mutilating what gets built on top of that foundation.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/05/21 21:07:47


 
   
Made in us
Keeper of the Flame





West Lafayette, IN

The state of 40K is such that I went back to playing a version of the game that is almost 25 years old...

www.classichammer.com

For 4-6th WFB, 2-5th 40k, and similar timeframe gaming

Looking for dice from the new AOS boxed set and Dark Imperium on the cheap. Let me know if you can help.
 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Its AoS, it doesn't have to make sense.
 
   
Made in us
Krazed Killa Kan






Very negative for me. 8th and 9th are an unfun mess of a game due to the gutting of the core rules (super bare bones with all the rules being slapped on top from the codexes, this is not a good way to design a game to have any meaningful depth). Power creep is still problematic so it's not like GW really learned any lessions about quality rules writing. The community by and large just devours whatever gak GW shovels out so the actions I greatly despise from GW are being financially rewarded which means there is little chance for a reverse course towards a game that is more like previous editions. It made me bitter to the hobby because all of my work, passion, and love for the hobby was shot when GW releases 8th. Now the bitterness has faded to having moments where I care but I'm too tired of being frustrated with the game to try and put any effort into it anymore. Worst part is seeing how now "it's the best 40k has ever been" is a common sentiment while this "best" smoothered the love I have/had for 40k.

"Hold my shoota, I'm goin in"
Armies (7th edition points)
7000+ Points Death Skullz
4000 Points
+ + 3000 Points "The Fiery Heart of the Emperor"
3500 Points "Void Kraken" Space Marines
3000 Points "Bard's Booze Cruise" 
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User





Over-all kind of negative for me, but maybe leaning towards neutral. I don't mind the core rules of 9th but there's still things about the rules that bother me.

I don't particularly like anything can hurt anything, I miss the days where to kill a tank you need an anti-tank weapon. Now it feels like I lose as many Rhinos to massed bolter rifle fire in tactical doctrine as I do to melta guns and lascannons. I really don't like how torqued offensive firepower is, it's got to the point where a codex has to limit damage per phase, allow getting wounds back, halving or minimizing incoming damage, have multiple layers of saves/ignore wounds and in many cases several at the prior at once for a model to even be considered survivable.

I don't like how many innate unit special rules and wargear options have become stratagems, not that I mind stratagems as a concept, I just think they're poorly implemented and there's far too many of them. I don't get to game more than one or twice a week and between other games that means I might play 40K two or three times a month and I can't even begin to think of how many times I've probably missed to a situation to use a strat because I simply forgot it existed in my mitt full of cards, let alone get past the dread 'gotcha' moment of an opponent's strat because how can be expected to know 40 stratagems for each other army let alone mine.

Then there's all the bloat, which isn't to say the rules are bad in and of themselves but when I have to buy my Dark Eldar book and then buy some campaign book that released on the same day to have access to all my rules, it feels like day one DLC and a sad money grab. They came out on the same day, any rules should be in the Dark Eldar codex. I mean if it was only crusade rules for expanding into a themed campaign, or the rules were optional campaign rules and not actually legal for standard match play then sure by all means release a cool campaign supplement but don't make it something I really need to have to have my complete matched play rules. That's kind of infuriating.

I don't want to dwell to negatively though and like I said I think the core of 9th is kind of okay. I haven't played a lot of 9th yet, only really when it first came out and then kind of fell away from it. My main armies are Craftworlds and Night Lords, so I don't even feel like I can keep up with the newer books. Also as a guy who likes the lore and thematic play, the fact that my Astartes (along with GK and TS) have only a single wound and other Marines have two at the same time just irks me to no end.

I'd also like to echo the sentiment of a few I've seen here too. I HATE centre piece models. I broke into 40K when this game was about an army. I can't stand always seeing the same big model in every list, I want it to be about the grunts, the tanks, and handful of elite warriors, not Mortarion vs Guilliman every game with cannon fodder on each side to make them look good (I know that's a slight exaggeration). 9th core rules had potential but more and more 40K has just stopped feeling like 40K. Maybe it's the newer style of game, a little simpler, more combo based and streamlined. I like my crunchy games (avid lover of Battletech and WHFB) so maybe I'm just not the target audience anymore.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




I’m mostly a fan. My only real big complaint is how the power creep works. Like a codex will come out with some sort of faction defining special rule, but then the next codex has that rule too, and now your faction doesn’t feel so unique. Especially when a few months later the marines get a better version of that rule.

Personally I’ve been keeping track of every faction that’s had transhuman added with their update. As far as I know it started with chaos knights, then marines got it, then necrons, think there’s at least a death guard warlord trait, then drukhari got the weird version, and of course dark angels got it. Probably missed some too.
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






Very interesting data so far. Few people in the neutral and almost everyone, even from those who like it, agree the game could use improvement (and I doubt they mean it in the sense of 'well things could always be a little better...'). Those who are negative trend much more into thinking it is in an extremely bad place.

Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page


I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history. 
   
Made in us
Grumpy Longbeard





washington state USA

For anybody who has read any of my posts, i am hard in the very negative camp.

I think 9th in fact rivals 6th edition as probably the worst edition ever made.

the bloat, the clunky time consuming game mechanics that make the game drag out, the scoring system, the excessive lethality, the lack of personal creative ownership, the reality that the game is focused on comp play (crusade is a bone that most people looking for a pick up game at the FLGS are not going after including regulars)

Much like Inquisitor Lord Katherine discovered our group going back and playing 5th with a few house rules is way more fun than anything that 9th has to offer. and more importantly is FEELS like 40K.




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 fr
Mutilatin' Mad Dok






I have been playing since end of 4th edition, and I don’t understand how groups can play an old version of 40k. Do you use house rules for the new kits that were released after ? If so does everyone in the playgroup get to vote on them ? Does the group leader kind of « impose » the rules, unless a vivid opposition arises ? Do you not use them at all ? Does everyone grown and moan « I won’t buy any new GW stuff until they do rules exactly the way I want them to be » ?

I am genuinely curious as to how that works.

I have been playing a lot of 9th (unlike some folks here I suspect, like guys, if you use cover well, the game ain’t so lethal. Unlike 8th which was very lethal indeed. I main orks I should know, they are not durable) and it is ok (flawed by gak like the drukhari codex but ok) for me

This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2021/05/22 09:55:11


Ere we go ere we go ere we go
Corona Givin’ Umies Da good ol Krulpin they deserve huh huh 
   
Made in us
Grumpy Longbeard





washington state USA

 addnid wrote:
I have been playing since end of 4th edition, and I don’t understand how groups can play an old version of 40k. Do you use house rules for the new kits that were released after ? If so does everyone in the playgroup get to vote on them ? Does the group leader kind of « impose » the rules, unless a vivid opposition arises ? Do you not use them at all ? Does everyone grown and moan « I won’t buy any new GW stuff until they do rules exactly the way I want them to be » ?

I am genuinely curious as to how that works.

I have been playing a lot of 9th (unlike some folks here I suspect, like guys, if you use cover well, the game ain’t so lethal. Unlike 8th which was very lethal indeed. I main orks I should know, they are not durable) and it is ok (flawed by gak like the drukhari codex but ok) for me


We have an entire topic on this


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/789567.page


But the short answer is yes
5th is the core rules set with the 15 house rules(imports of better versions of the rules from the other related editions that we all agreed on needed to be in the 5th ed rules set) but you can use any codex that is compatible from 3rd-7th however you must adhere to the 5th ed USRs all new models from newer codexes are allowed and easy to backfill into the codex of your choice. our chaos player uses the 3.5 codex and imported the helldrake into the codex with no issues.

Also nobody needs to buy any new GW models since we all have huge collections to choose from. If there is something we need. there are plenty of people selling the older kits (pre-8th) online.

Additional note, because i dislike 9th do not proceed from the idea i don't understand it. the pandemic never completely shut us down we just moved to limited private invite only gaming for about 6 months where people played many different games including 9th



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
Ork Boy Hangin' off a Trukk





Overall negative for me for late 8th and current 9th editions for me, for many of the same reasons stated by others (i.e. lethality, stratagems, rules bloat, etc.). I actually liked early 8th (the Index era, and just prior to the 8th Space Marines 2.0 codex). The new Apocalypse however is the best 40k release in a long time and makes for some simple and fun games with more strategic decisions than the current 9th ruleset. I'm also a fan of older editions (4th/5th) and much prefer those rulesets and codexes over the current editions.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/22 15:42:59


Apocalypse/40K: Orks, Imperial Guard, Eldar, Space Wolves, Necrons
AOS: Sons of Behemat (Mantic and D&D giants)
Blood Bowl: Skaven, Humans, Orcs, Goblins, Dark Elves, Wood Elves, Dwarves, Chaos Dwarves, Undead, Necromantic, Snotlings, Vampires, Lizardmen, Chaos, Amazons 
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter





 addnid wrote:
I have been playing since end of 4th edition, and I don’t understand how groups can play an old version of 40k. Do you use house rules for the new kits that were released after ? If so does everyone in the playgroup get to vote on them ? Does the group leader kind of « impose » the rules, unless a vivid opposition arises ? Do you not use them at all ? Does everyone grown and moan « I won’t buy any new GW stuff until they do rules exactly the way I want them to be » ?

I am genuinely curious as to how that works.

I have been playing a lot of 9th (unlike some folks here I suspect, like guys, if you use cover well, the game ain’t so lethal. Unlike 8th which was very lethal indeed. I main orks I should know, they are not durable) and it is ok (flawed by gak like the drukhari codex but ok) for me


One appeal of older editions to me is that the Riptide, Wraithknight, and Lords of War in regular games just aren't a thing. If everybody in the playgroup was playing in 5th, then we all have 5e-compatible collections.

If all else fails, models that have been introduced since then proxy for models that were valid at the time, or have drop-fit conversions [IE: a wyvern becomes a griffin by dropping a new turret with a mortar on it on the turret ring].


As we don't use any house rules or adapters. We could do something about wound allocation, but we'd rather play it straight.

Agreeing on house rules is, in general, hard. For example, I wouldn't abide by almost all of the house rules aphyon has, in my opinion reduced rapid fire restrictions, overwatch, snap shots, non troop scoring, and flyers were all overwhelmingly negative contributions to the game [and I have specific reasoning behind all of those for another place and another time], and the others don't actually improve the game, or remedy the editions known deficiencies.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/22 17:20:55


Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades! 
   
Made in ch
Warped Arch Heretic of Chaos





 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
 addnid wrote:
I have been playing since end of 4th edition, and I don’t understand how groups can play an old version of 40k. Do you use house rules for the new kits that were released after ? If so does everyone in the playgroup get to vote on them ? Does the group leader kind of « impose » the rules, unless a vivid opposition arises ? Do you not use them at all ? Does everyone grown and moan « I won’t buy any new GW stuff until they do rules exactly the way I want them to be » ?

I am genuinely curious as to how that works.

I have been playing a lot of 9th (unlike some folks here I suspect, like guys, if you use cover well, the game ain’t so lethal. Unlike 8th which was very lethal indeed. I main orks I should know, they are not durable) and it is ok (flawed by gak like the drukhari codex but ok) for me


One appeal of older editions to me is that the Riptide, Wraithknight, and Lords of War in regular games just aren't a thing. If everybody in the playgroup was playing in 5th, then we all have 5e-compatible collections.

If all else fails, models that have been introduced since then proxy for models that were valid at the time, or have drop-fit conversions [IE: a wyvern becomes a griffin by dropping a new turret with a mortar on it on the turret ring].


it's also not particulary difficult really.
Take the lord discordant f.e. you can easily just make him into a count as DP with the same price, like one with wings, forgoe the psy for the aura and there done.
It's not rocket science.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

In the 41st millennium there is only overpriced hamberders.

 
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter





Not Online!!! wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
 addnid wrote:
I have been playing since end of 4th edition, and I don’t understand how groups can play an old version of 40k. Do you use house rules for the new kits that were released after ? If so does everyone in the playgroup get to vote on them ? Does the group leader kind of « impose » the rules, unless a vivid opposition arises ? Do you not use them at all ? Does everyone grown and moan « I won’t buy any new GW stuff until they do rules exactly the way I want them to be » ?

I am genuinely curious as to how that works.

I have been playing a lot of 9th (unlike some folks here I suspect, like guys, if you use cover well, the game ain’t so lethal. Unlike 8th which was very lethal indeed. I main orks I should know, they are not durable) and it is ok (flawed by gak like the drukhari codex but ok) for me


One appeal of older editions to me is that the Riptide, Wraithknight, and Lords of War in regular games just aren't a thing. If everybody in the playgroup was playing in 5th, then we all have 5e-compatible collections.

If all else fails, models that have been introduced since then proxy for models that were valid at the time, or have drop-fit conversions [IE: a wyvern becomes a griffin by dropping a new turret with a mortar on it on the turret ring].


it's also not particulary difficult really.
Take the lord discordant f.e. you can easily just make him into a count as DP with the same price, like one with wings, forgoe the psy for the aura and there done.
It's not rocket science.


It's not a matter of difficulty. A, just use the DP's rules, keep the psy, no aura, and B, as I said, to some degree we just don't want those units in the game, so there isn't a need to adapt them.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/22 20:16:18


Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades! 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: