Switch Theme:

Peak 40K?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in it
Focused Fire Warrior





 Rhia_Stadtfeld wrote:
Back would be cool, but in equal measure the positives I like in 9th from what I've read so far:-

- Crusades, cool as
- Missions, far better than 3rd
- Army & Faction Keywords for force org charts
for combining forces. Also very cool.
- Finally, psykers, for a galaxy rife with psychic ability, witch hunters etc, and those who should have them, they felt hugely neglected in previous editions.

I agree on those points and I'd add terrain rules as well.

The issues are mainly two imho, and they are pretty big ones:
- unbalance (both internal, between units in the same book, and external, between factions), unequivocably more than in the past. The monthly goonhammer articles on the state of 40K meta show this with numbers, over and over.
During past editions, 7th ed included, there wasn't such a big unbalance. And the game wasn't actively rebalanced back then. But then again, unbalance sells and GW profits from that.

- rules bloat. Too many sources to draw rules from, too many stratagems, abilities, interactions, ... Some consolidation is desperately needed.
but then again they are releasing campaign books for factions that have received their codex a month before.

The core set of rules is mostly fine, a bit too much dumbed down for my tastes but it's ok. It's everything else on top that is ruining the experience.


 
   
Made in gb
Crazed Zealot




South East UK

 Aenar wrote:


The issues are mainly two imho, and they are pretty big ones:
- unbalance (both internal, between units in the same book, and external, between factions), unequivocably more than in the past. The monthly goonhammer articles on the state of 40K meta show this with numbers, over and over.
During past editions, 7th ed included, there wasn't such a big unbalance. And the game wasn't actively rebalanced back then. But then again, unbalance sells and GW profits from that.



Going into this from a re releasing / new units / sales meta and what I miss view - we've entirely lost some factions or branches of, gained others and overall there just seems to be less of the cool old school style minis with heaps of customization options for unique characters given the lack of a wargear section like in 2nd-4th. If they landed somewhere between 4th and 9th mixed, brought back the less common forces like the Vostroyans, Lost & the Damned. Hell, I don't even dislike the primaris marines, especially from a scaling standing, I think the astartes needed an upscale anyway, and particularly the multi wound suits them.

A lot of the decisions, new minis for some factions and general style shifts feel a bit like a cash cow clutch to me and not like they "belong". However it's REALLY nice to see the mechanicus & knights represented on tabletop now along with super heavies.

There's an abundance of model ranges they could do people would love to see, or dig out through the lore.

It's a shame that some armies are literally scattered across editions these days.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/11 22:42:54


 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




 Blackie wrote:
8th edition was more accessible only in the index era which lasted... one month maybe? And it was the most unbalanced edition ever in that period.


No it wasn't. Even max strength guillamen stormraven was nowhere near as broken as end of life 7th.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Aenar wrote:
 Rhia_Stadtfeld wrote:
Back would be cool, but in equal measure the positives I like in 9th from what I've read so far:-

- Crusades, cool as
- Missions, far better than 3rd
- Army & Faction Keywords for force org charts
for combining forces. Also very cool.
- Finally, psykers, for a galaxy rife with psychic ability, witch hunters etc, and those who should have them, they felt hugely neglected in previous editions.

I agree on those points and I'd add terrain rules as well.

The issues are mainly two imho, and they are pretty big ones:
- unbalance (both internal, between units in the same book, and external, between factions), unequivocably more than in the past. The monthly goonhammer articles on the state of 40K meta show this with numbers, over and over.
During past editions, 7th ed included, there wasn't such a big unbalance. And the game wasn't actively rebalanced back then. But then again, unbalance sells and GW profits from that.

- rules bloat. Too many sources to draw rules from, too many stratagems, abilities, interactions, ... Some consolidation is desperately needed.
but then again they are releasing campaign books for factions that have received their codex a month before.

The core set of rules is mostly fine, a bit too much dumbed down for my tastes but it's ok. It's everything else on top that is ruining the experience.


7th edition only had 3 armies that even COULD win events. Chaos daemons, Eldar and Space marines. Each of those factions individually had more tournament WINS than any other faction had PLACINGS by the end of 7th. Even Triptide Tau, Warcon Admech, Renegades and dinner plates, and Decurions didn't actually have a chance in 90% of events.

If you want to argue that 9th's balance is bad, feel free. There's a strong argument for that. But at least A. You have FOUR factions that have a decent shot at taking events and B. Armies aren't winning with 2% casuality rates because they have a 2+rerollable invul and a 4+ rerollable feel no pain on an invisible deathstar.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The game is solved unless utterly buried in special rules....

If only there was a way to design a simple game with depth enough to GO unsolved.

There certainly aren't GOing to be any examples of a game that is centuries old, simple, and hasn't been solved. GO.


Soo...you think they adapt GO to 40k? Or use GO rules with 40k models? Or design a game that, largely by accident, persists for several hundred years? Because none of those seem practical.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/09/12 03:06:37


2500pts
2500
3000


 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




 jeff white wrote:
Eihnlazer wrote:Command points are a big issue of contention.
There are too many and they are too necessary atm.
We should honestly just go back to units having their own special rules, and drop command points down big time.
They should actually work more like they do in the new KT 2021, with stuff you can activate in the command phase that works for the whole turn.
Having only 3-8 CP the entire game and way less stratagems that are necessary for units to operate effectively would be far healthier for the game.

Alternating activations are a possible step, but it would have to be a bit different.
I'd like it more if the game went straight to one of each phase per turn, instead of both players having all the phases.
One command phase, that players take turns doing stuff in, one movement phase, that players take turns in, etc.

This would also open up potential actions or things for armies that dont participate in a phase.
Your army has no psychers? Well every time its your activation in the psychic phase, you can attempt an action, or attempt to shake off a debuff your opponent has placed on you.

These seem like good suggestions.
1a) Drop CP (maybe completely) and
1b) return to unit special rules (perhaps something like new KT).
2) Alternate by phases rather than turns.

AnomanderRake wrote:
I'm hoping the rumored new 30k stuff comes with a resurgence in official support/plastic models, so we can have 9th for the people who like 9th and 30k with facings and scatter dice for those of us who'd prefer that.

I am on the fence about this... I would like to stay involved in the current narrative (so-called "primaris" are useful idiot jackboots for heresy-on-high, to be purged accordingly) AND keep facings and templates and initiative and get rid of rando charges and CP and more .... and see no reason why a rules system could not be composed that allows for the plug and play of rules components that GW could simply draw from stuff that they already own, as they were present in prior editions or could be inspired from prior editions and improved for a new plug and play rules set. But, maybe marketing thinks it will be better business if they can try to sell another new line of hastiy composed computer art littered hardback collector's editions for yet another new and improved rules system. Fool me twice, umm, no. I like that other people like 30K, but we got plenty of heresy going on right here and now... lookin at you, Cawl.

Gregor Samsa wrote:
Spoiler:
I strongly agree with the idea that strategems have become something quite bad for 40k.

Some of that is design logic: great imbalance between strategems that render some useless. They also paradoxically often reduce the strategy of the game itself.

Game's being decided because of one strategem that an opponent couldn't know about as it was locked inside a $50 shoddily made book that is only tangentially relevant to the game itself reduces the strategic and tactical merit of the gameplay.

Returning USR and giving strategems to specific units as abilities that are all clearly documented in the faction's ONE codex would be a huge positive change.
Spoiler:

Some of that is business logic: driving sales through paywalling strategems within otherwise forgettable and not worth the oil/paper required to produce them (psychic awakening stuff).

It just leaves a bad taste in people's mouths. How could it not? Especially hobbyists who have been around for 40 years or so...

40k is definitely going through its "emperor has no clothes moment". From the outside it appears as though it is an untouchable giant. But from within, and from those of us who have been around the block, there are real cracks in the foundation.

40k is certainly my group's "last resort" game and only played when we feel more "sci-fi" than fantasy. With the new KT out, it will scratch the "sci-fi" itch for sometime, as the chore of 2000 points of 40k just isn't worth it.
Spoiler:

There's too many pointless hurdles to get through (multiple rules books, errata, faq) and then the actual mechanics are super underwhelming (a 25 year old IGOUGO system that the Company won't touch as they're afraid the kill the goose which lays the golden eggs).

I don't hold out much hope for 10th edition (as the rules are probably already finished for it already!).

But what I do think is that if 40k doesn't re-invent itself, there is a huge gap in market there for a new sci-fi "mass battle" game to give it a good run for its money. This is likely why they're litigating so aggressively, to try and scare competition away.

Part of the reason AoS is doing merely so-so is that there are tons of fantastic fantasy/historical rulesets out there already. My group is much more likely to play warmaster, hail caesar, WHFB 7th edition before we would ever get around to wanting to play AoS.

Right now 40k has very little competition in the sci-fi setting. If they keep burning their customers and refuse to develop a better version of the game, eventually a product will come along that seriously threatens it because they've been too lazy in updating their own game.

Finding lots of agreement on the USR angle, anti-strategem. The feeling about 40K being last resort is exactly the feeling that I got from that podcast host, too.

Rhia_Stadtfeld wrote:As someone who hasn't played in probably over 10-12 years now, dropping back in has been quite overwhelming. Finding a community or even friends with a relaxed approach to the game seems more difficult nowadays.
Spoiler:


I actually moved away for those 10 years to a role play game set in the 41st millennium as it was the lore and faction profiles that drew me in and what I primarily loved most.

There are some parts of 9th that do intrigue me, namely the crusades and I have heard good things about the missions especially comparable to 3rd and 4th Ed.

I think the biggest grey area and off switch for me so far, Are changes or "advances" if you like in the lore, some of it feels a little choppy and some armies feel as though they've been made to be "more competitive" with "units they need to balance things out" vs units they'd tradionally have as per their history.

I was keen to try 9th, but the more I read on various forums the more inclined I am to revert back to 4th edition or even 2nd or 3rd as it still seems popular amongst people.

I think there's clear difficulty in sating the veterans & attracting the new players alike especially when you have people, such as myself, who want to get back on the horse, but equally want to ride the old horse, not whatever 3 legged one is currently out there.

This comment speaks to Winters' "acessibility" of 8th assessment. For me, I was super excited about 8th when I saw Shadow War Armageddon, then super let down when I saw what 8th actually turned out to be. Maybe accessible, maybe good for share prices cuz a lot of people got hyped for a new approach (maybe oldsters misled by SWA as I intitially was), but not a game that I wanted to play. Indexes were a good idea...then they turned into a patchy cash grab and ... yeah, no. But, now, 2nd or 3rd or even 4th... talk about accessible! And affordable. And then there are some awesome hobby project house rule systems available right here on Dakka based on these older systems.

So maybe back is the new forward for 40K.




I can see where people are coming from about 9th not being what they want out of 40k. I've 100% given up on trying to teach anyone who is even slightly competitively minded the game or bring in any new players because explaining how a competitive army plays just takes to long.

But past editions weren't better. The rules were hundreds of pages long, filled to the brim with opaque nonsense and poor design choices the same way every rule GW has ever written has been. Once you learned the game it was relatively simple to keep up to date with it but it would be a week of sitting around reading the rulebook before someone could even reasonably be able to play through a basic movement phase->shooting phase. Remember, back in those days it took 30+ pages just to tell you how to move a model from point A to point B. With 9th you could feasibly play a basic marine vs marine 500pt game the first day you pick up the rulebook and be pretty confident in the basics by the end of it.

It's not a 'trusty old horse' vs a three legged horse, it's a taxidermy of the horse you remember vs a V8 Supercharged TURBO-STALLION! Brought to you by REDBULL! Neither of which are ideal for a jaunt around the old farmstead.

Older editions started off with overbloated rules and added more stuff relatively sparingly until they got boring or broke completely (looking at you 5th). 9th started with accessible, relatively streamlined rules and built on that to the point where even knowing what your own stuff does takes a massive amount of time and like 3 reminder apps.

GW should take what they learned with 9th and go back to formula a bit:

1. It should be reasonable for 2 new players to pick up the rulebook and play a basic starter game the same afternoon AND GET MOST OF THE BASIC RULE RIGHT.

2. Rule of 3, anti-soup, more limited probability manipulation (i.e. targeted rerolls vs Auras), and all other 'Stop me before I hurt someone!' rules GW has realized they need in order to reign in their worst impulses should be foundational. GW can't be trusted with, for example, the old force org that let the loyal 32 dominate for a long time.

3. Bring the damage down a bit. Shooting and melee. That way you don't end up with things like the vehicle teeter totter we're seeing right now (i.e. Melta makes Vehicles bad so no one brings vehicles. No one bringing vehicles means people stop bringing melta. No one bringing melta means vehicles get good, vehicles being good means more people bring melta. Etc.) Or the being reliant on terrain to extend engagements.

4. Units and weapons have to be FUNCTIONAL to be BALANCE-ABLE. Multimeltas may not be balanced now, but at least there's points values could actually influence that. Pre-melta change, the multimelta was arguably worse than a regular melta point for point and neither gun was worth it compared to plasma.

5. Decent Terrain rules plus solid mission design mean that CQC CAN be viable, even necessary.

6. Put a cap on how complex an army is allowed to get before you stop giving them more rules. Current Sisters of Battle are probably over that limit. Current Admech have individual UNITS that are over that limit.

6. Depth and Complexity are not the same thing. Reroll auras and Defensive bubbles are not depth. Vehicle facings and blast templates are not depth.

2500pts
2500
3000


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




NE Ohio, USA

ERJAK wrote:

But past editions weren't better. The rules were hundreds of pages long, filled to the brim with opaque nonsense and poor design choices the same way every rule GW has ever written has been. Once you learned the game it was relatively simple to keep up to date with it but it would be a week of sitting around reading the rulebook before someone could even reasonably be able to play through a basic movement phase->shooting phase. Remember, back in those days it took 30+ pages just to tell you how to move a model from point A to point B. With 9th you could feasibly play a basic marine vs marine 500pt game the first day you pick up the rulebook and be pretty confident in the basics by the end of it.


Hmm. Either your describing 7th ed (the only edition I didn't play & don't own any books for) OR your prone to hyperbole, misremembering RT - 6e, & played these games with exceptionally stupid people.
Because your not describing any edition of 40k I've ever played....


ERJAK wrote:

Older editions started off with overbloated rules and added more stuff relatively sparingly until they got boring or broke completely (looking at you 5th).


Again, must've been a 7th ed thing. Because GWs never been shy about adding new/more stuff. The only difference was that you didn't receive it all within a 3 yr window.



ERJAK wrote:

3. Bring the damage down a bit. Shooting and melee. That way you don't end up with things like the vehicle teeter totter we're seeing right now (i.e. Melta makes Vehicles bad so no one brings vehicles. No one bringing vehicles means people stop bringing melta. No one bringing melta means vehicles get good, vehicles being good means more people bring melta. Etc.) Or the being reliant on terrain to extend engagements.


Not sure how you expect GW to solve that one. The dance of bringing/not bringing of AT weapons vs bringing/not bringing vehicles to a game has been going on longer than 40ks existed.
It's just answering the fundamental questions of "What's the other guy likely to bring? How can I take advantage of that?"
   
Made in fr
Regular Dakkanaut




40k needs MASSIVE pruning in all areas related to army books, and core cules still need improvement.

Rules should be free, in a way they already are, thanks to Russia, but GW didn't catch up.
   
Made in dk
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker






ccs wrote:
ERJAK wrote:

But past editions weren't better. The rules were hundreds of pages long, filled to the brim with opaque nonsense and poor design choices the same way every rule GW has ever written has been. Once you learned the game it was relatively simple to keep up to date with it but it would be a week of sitting around reading the rulebook before someone could even reasonably be able to play through a basic movement phase->shooting phase. Remember, back in those days it took 30+ pages just to tell you how to move a model from point A to point B. With 9th you could feasibly play a basic marine vs marine 500pt game the first day you pick up the rulebook and be pretty confident in the basics by the end of it.


Hmm. Either your describing 7th ed (the only edition I didn't play & don't own any books for) OR your prone to hyperbole, misremembering RT - 6e, & played these games with exceptionally stupid people.
Because your not describing any edition of 40k I've ever played....

72 pages for 5th edition. 39 for basic rules in 9th and 8th was shorter, 9th is just written to be easier to understand, something that doesn't apply to 5th, it's just long and bloated because wargames are supposed to have long and bloated rules brblrblr. 18 pages vs 7 pages for shooting.

ERJAK wrote:

3. Bring the damage down a bit. Shooting and melee. That way you don't end up with things like the vehicle teeter totter we're seeing right now (i.e. Melta makes Vehicles bad so no one brings vehicles. No one bringing vehicles means people stop bringing melta. No one bringing melta means vehicles get good, vehicles being good means more people bring melta. Etc.) Or the being reliant on terrain to extend engagements.


Not sure how you expect GW to solve that one. The dance of bringing/not bringing of AT weapons vs bringing/not bringing vehicles to a game has been going on longer than 40ks existed.
It's just answering the fundamental questions of "What's the other guy likely to bring? How can I take advantage of that?"

It's only a problem when one or the other is OP, otherwise, it won't be the end of the world when you bring a few tanks against someone who brought a few meltaguns, only against a list with a tonne of tanks or a tonne of meltaguns will a balanced list be in trouble. When anti-whatever guns are so OP that an army bringing a balanced amount of them destroys an army with a balanced amount of whatever then things are out of wack.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/12 04:59:14


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





There will always be a better edition, and that opinion will change based on people's feelings. I personally don't miss vehicle sides, templates, or scatter dice, but I do miss parts of the old AP system. I'm not a fan of stratagems and the mortal wound spam that some armies need to operate, but I do like the relative simplicity of the targeting rules, shooting, and fighting.

What I'd love to see going forward is a complete restructuring of the whole stratagem system. Fewer stratagems, fewer command points overall, and fewer reliance on those stratagems and command points. When a space marine player is able to use Transhuman Physiology every turn to save their best units, you've headed too far into the wrong side of the system. On top of that, many factions have 20+ stratagems but only 3-4 are used regularly. Chop out the junk, weaken the stratagems, make the game simpler from that standpoint, and make stratagems a once-per-game thing, no matter what they are (except maybe command re-roll I guess). THEN you'll have a strategic game. Do you pop transhuman physiology first turn to keep your army tip top shape, or do you save it for a clutch moment near the end of the game to secure those objectives? That's the kind of decision I want to make.
   
Made in it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

 Aenar wrote:


The issues are mainly two imho, and they are pretty big ones:
- unbalance (both internal, between units in the same book, and external, between factions), unequivocably more than in the past. The monthly goonhammer articles on the state of 40K meta show this with numbers, over and over.
During past editions, 7th ed included, there wasn't such a big unbalance. And the game wasn't actively rebalanced back then. But then again, unbalance sells and GW profits from that.



What???? These days we probably have the most balanced edition of 40k ever, both internal and external. Probably you are biased as I assume you play tau, a race that is currently suffering (and it doesn't have a 9th edition codex yet, don't forget that) but was utterly OP in 7th.

The monthly goonhammer articles on the state of 40k shows that in just 18 months a lot of different stuff worked at competitve levels. Lots of different factions, all with different lists archetypes, at top levels as well. That's proof of high internal and external balance. In 7th it was only a matter of 3 top armies, basically with the very same lists.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
ERJAK wrote:


No it wasn't. Even max strength guillamen stormraven was nowhere near as broken as end of life 7th.



It was. Competitively speaking maybe not but that's not the point, when an ork boy is 6ppm and a deffkopta is 83ppm you only see lists of 180 boyz, cheap artillery and cheap characters. Anything else had insane prices. At the same time you saw AM armies with tons of bodies, tons of cheap artillery and as many tanks they could get.

Points costs were unreasonable, pretty much for everyone. To the point that each army had basically one build. I had way more fun with my crappy 7th orks than during the index era, despite the fact that the greentide was fairly competitive in that period. But competitive how? By slowplaying games that can't last more than 2-3 turns due to time limitations and by bringing an extreme skew list. I also played Drukhari and SW, both were more fun to play in 7th. I'd take 7th over 8th index any day.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/12 06:31:36



 
   
Made in ie
Ruthless Rafkin





 Blackie wrote:


What???? These days we probably have the most balanced edition of 40k ever, both internal and external. Probably you are biased as I assume you play tau, a race that is currently suffering (and it doesn't have a 9th edition codex yet, don't forget that) but was utterly OP in 7th.


- just because you keep saying its balanced doesn't make it so.
- saying its the most balanced 40k ever is like saying its the most balanced endgame jenga tower ever. Its still unbalanced, just in different ways
-personal attacks don't strengthen your argument

Also on-topic:
For me, 40k peaked at pre-PA 8th. It was somewhat simple enough to sit down and have a good time. You could sit down, throw together a list and throw dice and have a laugh with friends. Now it feels like 80% of the game is in rule books, tied up in super-doctrines, strats, faction abilities and secondary objectives.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/12 07:51:44



 
   
Made in it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

Well I invited to read goonhammer articles about state of the meta. Anyone can clearly see how many factions get good results. There will always be top tiers, but how many solid mid tiers we have now? More than in the past, and some of them don't even have an updated codex. Armies that are considered bad by many tournament players are actually pretty solid especially in casual gaming, see Necrons. Also lists are very different from each other among the same factions, which is huge.

Honestly I don't see any significant difference about bloat or complexity if you play pre-PA 8th or 9th. In fact 9th codex removed most of the broken combos from 8th, which means the game is way more friendly oriented now.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/12 08:09:29



 
   
Made in de
Contagious Dreadnought of Nurgle




Have to agree with blackie here. What keeps 9th back is GWs reluctance to release updated rules for all factions. There should have been Indexes in a CA at the end of 2020 for CSM, Tau, Genestealers, IG and Eldar, probably. (Pretty sure I forgot some important factions that also didn't have proper PA rules).
So far 9th edition Codexes are properly balanced to each other, outliers are fixed fast (compared to never like in 7- editions). And factions that got their PA at the end of 8th are also on par.
   
Made in us
Pyromaniac Hellhound Pilot





 Da Boss wrote:
Isn't 9e incredibly popular? I thought GW were making more money than ever these days. It's not quite to my taste either (I don't like mechanics like command points that much and would prefer alternating activation) but it seems to be "peak 40K" for loads of people.

7th was incredibly popular too - GW were still raking in millions and was the biggest played wargame bar none, but if you asked that question on the internet all you'd hear is how it was the worst game ever made and you couldn't force them at gunpoint to play it (except maybe some HH fans and even then, it only being good with the HH rules).

People don't play 40k because they think it's a good system, they play 40k because it's what they've always played and/or what everybody else is playing.
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
There should have been Indexes in a CA at the end of 2020 for CSM, Tau, Genestealers, IG and Eldar, probably.
Why? What would that have achieved except giving CSM 5 books in two editions (Index 1, Codex 1, Codex 2, Index 2, Codex 3)?

The Indices were necessary in 8th because 8th invalidated all previous rules in much the same way as 3rd Ed invalidated all previous rules. Indices are not the answer.

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

 
   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

it is interesting how most suggestions get into the change of the core rules instead of the army books, were the core is not the problem

there was never a real rules bloat in the core, neither in 5th, 7th nor in 9th.
5th might have been more pages than 9th, but than all the rules were in the core and not in the army books, it started to get bad by the point that GW thought the Special Rules in the core book are not enough and slightly different special rules need to be in the army rules just to make things different

and this was a problem since 3rd, that by the end of an edition, half of the universal special rules from the core were not used any more but replaced by slightly different army special rules in the different codices
removing USRs from the core did not solve the problem that every unit got their own special rules for the sake of having a special rule

 Arbitrator wrote:

7th was incredibly popular too - GW were still raking in millions and was the biggest played wargame bar none, but if you asked that question on the internet all you'd hear is how it was the worst game ever made and you couldn't force them at gunpoint to play it (except maybe some HH fans and even then, it only being good with the HH rules).

People don't play 40k because they think it's a good system, they play 40k because it's what they've always played and/or what everybody else is playing.


Situation must have been different in US than in Europe, as while 40k saw a rise at the start of 7th after 6th drove away a lot of people, mid 7th as Formations were introduced, it was very rarely played here and dropped to an all time low at the end of 7th

those that still played it might have compensated in sales but the game was not that popular any more

 Arbitrator wrote:
Isn't 9e incredibly popular? I thought GW were making more money than ever these days. It's not quite to my taste either (I don't like mechanics like command points that much and would prefer alternating activation) but it seems to be "peak 40K" for loads of people.

we still have a pandemic going and a high number in model sales does not mean a lot of people are playing the game, specially as there are still restrictions in lot of countries

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

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in dk
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker






 Blackie wrote:
Honestly I don't see any significant difference about bloat or complexity if you play pre-PA 8th or 9th.

You mean post-PA right? After everyone (except Necrons) got their Psychic Awakening update. I disagree a bit, AdMech and Drukhari are more bloated because AdMech got their Combat Doctrines and both got more rules in campaign supplements with specialist armies or whatever they're called. Space Marines are less bloated, for now, but they're probably going to get a tonne more rules by the end of 9th. Comparing pre-PA 8th and 9th after several campaign supplements have been released isn't even fair, 8th was way less bloated back then.
Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Have to agree with blackie here. What keeps 9th back is GWs reluctance to release updated rules for all factions. There should have been Indexes in a CA at the end of 2020 for CSM, Tau, Genestealers, IG and Eldar, probably. (Pretty sure I forgot some important factions that also didn't have proper PA rules).
So far 9th edition Codexes are properly balanced to each other, outliers are fixed fast (compared to never like in 7- editions). And factions that got their PA at the end of 8th are also on par.

12/9-21 AdMech are much stronger than Necrons and have been for 4 months, Drukhari have been much stronger than Necrons for 6 months. Releasing indexes would only slow things down, besides, it's not datasheets that are making these factions bad. Chapter Approved should have included secondaries for every faction, secondaries in codexes is dumb and unfair, I don't care whether I play the faction that gets them first, in the middle or last, these sorts of things shouldn't be released in a staggered manner, perhaps you agree and this is what you meant by an index, but to me index just means datasheets and psychic powers, not relics, objectives or crusade content.
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 kodos wrote:
it is interesting how most suggestions get into the change of the core rules instead of the army books, were the core is not the problem
There are plenty of problems with the core rules. The morale system is a joke. The terrain rules are needlessly convoluted. Vehicles and Monsters suffer horribly from the core rules that define how tough (or not tough) they are.

I agree that the Codices are where the majority of 40k's problems stem (and have always stemmed), but there are issues with the core rules that cannot be so easily dismissed.

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

 
   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

of course there are issues with the core, but for the main reason that the core rules changes want to solve problems from the Codices, but as soon as new books are released there are solutions to problems that are not there any more while new problems come up that are going to be solved with a new core

hence the new core rules try to solve the CP problem of 8th Edition, while not solving the problems coming with 9th Edition Army rules


Like 7th had some problems in the core that are solved easily (looking at the changes for 30k) in comparison to the problems the Codices came up with (like adding models worth 2000 points for free upon the existing 2000 points to play against an army with 1500 points worth of models)

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

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




 Blackie wrote:

Honestly I don't see any significant difference about bloat or complexity if you play pre-PA 8th or 9th. In fact 9th codex removed most of the broken combos from 8th, which means the game is way more friendly oriented now.


I think it depends on faction.

Ad Mech are complicated. Its obviously not impossible to learn, but as Winter's video suggests there's lots of different elements that are not necessarily intuitive if you don't know a lot of about 40k. (I.E. "what's a Skitarii?")

By contrast I'd say Dark Eldar for example are relatively simple. Do you know what Power From Pain and Blade Artists does? Okay the bulk of your army gets this. These guys also get drugs (slightly odd perhaps, but since you can establish this all before starting the game its reasonably straight forward). There are things that build on this, but you don't need to know them unless you are using them.

Early 8th had major problems - primarily turn 1 deep strike, completely open soup and no rule of 3. But assuming you didn't play in the Thunderdome, most people didn't build super-death lists on this basis (or at least didn't have them good to go on day one). By contrast in 7th I felt whole factions could not compete with others unless they put their arms behind their backs.

===

Its a different topic - but one of things I picked up from Winters video was the idea of "going back" to the old scenarios. To my mind 9th does risk getting old because every scenario is kind of just variation on a theme. But equally, I feel the "nothing matters until the last turn" was awful - for both competitive and casual players. It just encouraged "nuke everyone down" lists. which leads on to:

ccs wrote:
Not sure how you expect GW to solve that one. The dance of bringing/not bringing of AT weapons vs bringing/not bringing vehicles to a game has been going on longer than 40ks existed.
It's just answering the fundamental questions of "What's the other guy likely to bring? How can I take advantage of that?"


The answer is just to tweak the numbers. The issue with 40k is we seem to be at "attack the wrong thing? You should do 20% of your points in damage. The average thing? 40%? The right thing? 100%." I think the reason GW does this is two fold.
1. People like killing stuff. See the Scotsman's observation that players hate having their army bounce on "tough" opponents. (I know I do.)
2. The game speeds up as units die. If you expected both players to end up with 75% of their army left on turn 5, all moving, shooting etc, the game is going to take far longer than when one or both players are usually on fumes or dead by turn 5.

But nothing stops GW designing a game such that you attack the wrong thing, you expect only a 10% return, the average thing a 20-25% return, and the right thing a 40% return. The game doesn't have to be written so every army is a glasshammer. (I guess you could argue DG/DA Terminators etc, but these seem exceptions rather than the rule.)
   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought





Eye of Terror

This same question gets asked, in one form or another, with every new edition, with problems typically falling into similar categories: balance, complexity of the rules, time to complete a game, fidelity to the background, cost of models, publishing schedule, level of attention to problems by the game developer, etc.

There tends to be an arc to these kinds of conversations. The solutions called for typically start with radical change, followed by extensive wish lists, typically becoming more faction focused over time. Eventually, the cycle stops and starts again after a little time has passed.

While I have sympathy for the long suffering wargamer looking for something 'better,' that might be more of an ideal than a goal that can be achieved in the real world. There are simply too many layers being crammed into one game for each edition to remain stable more than a few years. New models, fluff, FAQs, the spread of net-optimized lists, tournaments, local / global meta, players aging out / starting up with the game, GW's need to actually sell stuff, etc all have an impact on the fuzzy concept of 'better.' There's not going to be a completely satisfying system, nor is there going to be incremental improvement over what currently exists.

The game will carry on with a hard reset in each new edition; as players, we discover the flaws through a series of games and use them until the next reset. I've never heard a convincing argument there's a way, as players, to alter that paradigm.

   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

true to that

yet what is new with 9th, is that we see wish-listing and talking about what 10th should bring, after the first year of the game

usually this starts with the half-time reset when GW shifts the new releases to another theme or the codex creep gets bad

the last time we have seen such discussions early on was with 6th

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

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in si
Ravenous Beast Form







9th was a tiny step back in the right direction after 12 years of constantly dumbing the game down, but at this point 40k is beyond salvation. The sculpts themselves are forcing it into being an overgunned, overkilly exercise in pelting each other with dice and hundreds of pages of convoluted (NOT complex) special rules can't hide this innate shallowness. The last time 40k was a game worth playing was when you had to legitimately consider standing still to double tap your small arms.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/12 10:33:00


Posters on ignore list: 34

40k Potica Edition - 40k patch with reactions, suppression and all that good stuff. Feedback thread here.

Gangs of Nu Ork - Necromunda / Gorkamorka expansion supporting all faction. Feedback thread here
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





UK

I'd prefer CPs and stratagems to be replaced by special rules for units too. What stratagems gives you though is abilities that can be used occasionally. I'm not sure how that would be handled if they were replaced.

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




 kodos wrote:
true to that

yet what is new with 9th, is that we see wish-listing and talking about what 10th should bring, after the first year of the game

usually this starts with the half-time reset when GW shifts the new releases to another theme or the codex creep gets bad

the last time we have seen such discussions early on was with 6th


I think the issue is that you've got a body of people who didn't like the jump from 7th to 8th, and are going to carry on those battles.

"Move to alternate activations and get rid of stratagems" is not really a 9th edition issue.
   
Made in de
Contagious Dreadnought of Nurgle




 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Sgt. Cortez wrote:
There should have been Indexes in a CA at the end of 2020 for CSM, Tau, Genestealers, IG and Eldar, probably.
Why? What would that have achieved except giving CSM 5 books in two editions (Index 1, Codex 1, Codex 2, Index 2, Codex 3)?

The Indices were necessary in 8th because 8th invalidated all previous rules in much the same way as 3rd Ed invalidated all previous rules. Indices are not the answer.


A simple proper FAQ like Space Wolves got for their extreme long wait of 2 months would have been okay to give CSM two wounds, too, but it's GW we're talking about .
   
Made in nl
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Sim-Life wrote:
 Blackie wrote:


What???? These days we probably have the most balanced edition of 40k ever, both internal and external. Probably you are biased as I assume you play tau, a race that is currently suffering (and it doesn't have a 9th edition codex yet, don't forget that) but was utterly OP in 7th.


- just because you keep saying its balanced doesn't make it so.
- saying its the most balanced 40k ever is like saying its the most balanced endgame jenga tower ever. Its still unbalanced, just in different ways
-personal attacks don't strengthen your argument

Also on-topic:
For me, 40k peaked at pre-PA 8th. It was somewhat simple enough to sit down and have a good time. You could sit down, throw together a list and throw dice and have a laugh with friends. Now it feels like 80% of the game is in rule books, tied up in super-doctrines, strats, faction abilities and secondary objectives.
For me 8th before the Marine 2.0 codex dropped was great and probably the best 40k has been since I started playing during 3e edition.
   
Made in gb
Crazed Zealot




South East UK

I didn't actually realise the years and dates of editions till I looked last night, I /actually/ last probably played in about 04, but entered the hobby in around 97. (I feel old af now)

With that in mind, given the amount of information on editions in here, how would you guys recommend I get back in?

Play smaller scale games? Play what I know? Or just step back out again, It sounds as though unless you've been with it since the release of 9th, forget about it, as by the time I've got a handle on it we'll be in 10th
   
Made in dk
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker






 Rhia_Stadtfeld wrote:
I didn't actually realise the years and dates of editions till I looked last night, I /actually/ last probably played in about 04, but entered the hobby in around 97. (I feel old af now)

With that in mind, given the amount of information on editions in here, how would you guys recommend I get back in?

Play smaller scale games? Play what I know? Or just step back out again, It sounds as though unless you've been with it since the release of 9th, forget about it, as by the time I've got a handle on it we'll be in 10th

Read the core rules and get a veteran who knows your army to build a list for you to play one 500 point game with you, then read the matched play rules, build a 1k list and learn the rules for the units and Stratagems you can use and play 3 1000 point games and then move on to 2000 point games. The difficult step is learning the rules for every other faction so you can play against people that like to gotcha, if you make it clear that you're new and you would like a primer on what your opponent's army can do and would like warning before they pull gotchas on you then 9th is easier to get into than most editions.
   
Made in de
Contagious Dreadnought of Nurgle




 Rhia_Stadtfeld wrote:
I didn't actually realise the years and dates of editions till I looked last night, I /actually/ last probably played in about 04, but entered the hobby in around 97. (I feel old af now)

With that in mind, given the amount of information on editions in here, how would you guys recommend I get back in?

Play smaller scale games? Play what I know? Or just step back out again, It sounds as though unless you've been with it since the release of 9th, forget about it, as by the time I've got a handle on it we'll be in 10th


Just do a little crusade campaign, starting at 25PL. That way you have a small roster to care about and can build up step by step. You also play the best way 40K always worked, irrespective of any edition, and that is narrative.
   
Made in gb
Crazed Zealot




South East UK

I'm not gonna quote you both as that'd make a reply far too long, this may seem an incredibly stupid question but what do you mean when you say "narrative play"?

As you can probably tell by my post count, as far as actually using a forum and trying to network a little and talk more in the community I'm very new here / in general. It always used to be quite a solitary hobby for me with exception of 6 or so friends

Thanks for your insight though, I was leaning towards a 500 pt patrol style start point after attempting to make a few 2k lists
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: