Switch Theme:

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


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




Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 Ordana wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Feels like a regular Dakka poster made an alt to complain about 9th edition. As if we didn't have enough threads on it.
I can see how you might think that.

Ofcourse another option is that this sounds so much like what others have complained about (myself included) because this is exactly what the returning players we are encountering in real life are saying.

(Since my club reopened after lockdown 2 players have tried 9th that haven't played much since 5/6th. Both of them reached basically the same conclusion. That all the stuff in the codex that stacks on top of the base game is to much to parse and that they are overwhelmed by the options available and have no desire to spend the time trying to parse all the varies relics, traits and stratagems and secondaries just to play a game of 9th roughly twice a month.


I know. I'm just being a douche, really. But it also hasn't ever been this easy to get into the core rules. You don't have to use everything from the get-go and realistically most of us didn't.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/15 23:52:33


   
Made in ca
Legendary Master of the Chapter





 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Tawnis wrote:
...While your complaints about 9th are certainly valid, this seems just as much an issue with the people in your community being meta chasing win at all cost nobheads.


I one hundred percent accept that the people I play with are all dicks, which is a big part of me not playing 9th. That said I get the exact same lectures here on Dakka as I do in person from those guys when I make the same observations, which leads me to think that it could be a broader problem.


complaining about a lack of internal balance in a codex and claiming "it's worse then ever": though is a straight up LIE when you're discussing a 8th edition codex. NO ONE denies that 8th edition had internal balance issues (so did 5th 6th and 7th) the actual armies with 9th edition codices however have very good internal balance. it's not perfect but it's definatly better then it's been in ages.

quit bitching about 9th edition being the problem when the real problem is you're using a 8th edition codex that wasn't very good in 8th and thus isn't going to magicly be any better with a simple edition change

Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





BrianDavion wrote:
quit bitching about 9th edition being the problem when the real problem is you're using a 8th edition codex that wasn't very good in 8th and thus isn't going to magicly be any better with a simple edition change


Well, that's sort of his point. He doesn't have any choice and GW could have left him in a better position with some more effort. 9th took him out of the running.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/16 00:32:17


   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







BrianDavion wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Tawnis wrote:
...While your complaints about 9th are certainly valid, this seems just as much an issue with the people in your community being meta chasing win at all cost nobheads.


I one hundred percent accept that the people I play with are all dicks, which is a big part of me not playing 9th. That said I get the exact same lectures here on Dakka as I do in person from those guys when I make the same observations, which leads me to think that it could be a broader problem.


complaining about a lack of internal balance in a codex and claiming "it's worse then ever": though is a straight up LIE when you're discussing a 8th edition codex. NO ONE denies that 8th edition had internal balance issues (so did 5th 6th and 7th) the actual armies with 9th edition codices however have very good internal balance. it's not perfect but it's definatly better then it's been in ages.

quit bitching about 9th edition being the problem when the real problem is you're using a 8th edition codex that wasn't very good in 8th and thus isn't going to magicly be any better with a simple edition change


I bought a Primaris army going into 9th because I thought there was less chance GW would screw me over if I had new models. Made the mistake of building them as Deathwatch, pauldrons and all. And then GW decided that what the Deathwatch really needed was to be turned into a slightly more complicated way of playing Space Marines with no Chapter Tactics. My 8e Codexes were terrible. My experience of playing 9e with a 9e Codex has been pretty terrible. And the "oh, but you're using an 8e Codex still!" is a pretty awful argument, given that you're again presenting players with the choice of getting beaten up because of cross-edition power creep, not playing for ~half an edition every cycle (sometimes more, sometimes less), or buying a different army. GW didn't do Indexes at the start of 9th, they said "you can still use your 8e Codex and it's fine!" And given that pretty much my sole bar for the quality of a minis game is "I can put models I like on the table, push them around, and have something resembling a close game!" saying "9e is great so long as you ignore all the Codexes that haven't yet been updated" isn't particularly helpful.

I wish to stress here that I'm not complaining because I think 9th specifically is the problem, I'm aware all of the things I complain about have been GW problems at least as far back as late 5e. I'm complaining because I feel like there's a revisionist historian crowd that's shown up in 8e/9e that's determined to shout about how 8e/9e represent GW turning over a new leaf and it's all smiles and roses and sunlit uplands from here on out and everything's going to be great, despite the fact that everything that's wrong with 8e/9e is the same stuff that was wrong with 6e/7e (bloat, game scale creep, excessive barrier to entry, poor balance, uneven distribution of releases) for the exact same reasons (Codex-based update schedule, lack of testing, presumption that the community either doesn't care or will self-correct, desire to make people buy multiple armies, only caring about the armies that the people on the dev team actually play during their lunch breaks, no central design vision).

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
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Daedalus81 wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
quit bitching about 9th edition being the problem when the real problem is you're using a 8th edition codex that wasn't very good in 8th and thus isn't going to magicly be any better with a simple edition change


Well, that's sort of his point. He doesn't have any choice and GW could have left him in a better position with some more effort. 9th took him out of the running.



I'm absolutely going to bitch if my Codex doesn't get updated for 2 out of the 3 active years of an edition, and then is promptly made worse by the next edition that comes out. I seriously feel bad for people that have an army that's updated in the last year of an edition's life cycle. They get the worst of all the worlds. Not enough time to be potent enough to matter, a bunch of rules and stats get invalidated by the new edition, and then they have to wait another long period of time for another update that might be at the end of an edition life cycle as well.

It's on GW to keep things updated, and the fact of the matter is that they're using an archaic system of updating rules. This isn't Dungeons and Dragons where an edition can last 5+ years and you can slowly expand the game through it's life cycle. Having 1/3rd of your game be out of date for the majority of the edition is a REALLY CRAPPY FEELING.
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut






9th ed is fine. It's fun if you play casually. It's better than 8th anyway.

But...

The "simplification" of 40K from 8th ed onward is the biggest lie GW ever sold (well, there was also the Finecast debacle).

All they did was push the bloat from the main rules to codex's and supplements and made it worse by not implementing USR's and standardization of definitions.

They've made the game unwieldy and unfriendly to users.

USR's is THE ONLY proper way to codify and create a system of rules. You may prefer bespoke rules, but it is objectively worse in every facet.

Just get Army Builder and look on 1D4 Chan for all the rules. Some times the rules aren't up to date, but it's no different than buying an outdated Codex that you need an FAQ for anyway. It will make the game make a lot more sense.

Square Bases for Life!
AoS is pure garbage
Kill Primaris, Kill the Primarchs. They don't belong in 40K
40K is fantasy in space, not sci-fi 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Brutus_Apex wrote:
9th ed is fine. It's fun if you play casually. It's better than 8th anyway.

But...

The "simplification" of 40K from 8th ed onward is the biggest lie GW ever sold (well, there was also the Finecast debacle).

All they did was push the bloat from the main rules to codex's and supplements and made it worse by not implementing USR's and standardization of definitions.

They've made the game unwieldy and unfriendly to users.

USR's is THE ONLY proper way to codify and create a system of rules. You may prefer bespoke rules, but it is objectively worse in every facet.

Just get Army Builder and look on 1D4 Chan for all the rules. Some times the rules aren't up to date, but it's no different than buying an outdated Codex that you need an FAQ for anyway. It will make the game make a lot more sense.


I wouldn't say it's worse in every facet, but I will concede that when you have the same rule, for example a stratagem that gives you +1 to wound, and just call it something else in every Codex, then that's something that should have been in the Core rules all along. Expand the list of 'generic' Stratagems so everyone has access to a lot of the same stuff, limit the stratagems to ALL be once per battle, and halve the amount of command points people get, and you'd be heading in roughly the right direction.
   
Made in us
Ork Boy Hangin' off a Trukk





PenitentJake wrote:

Also, even Tabletop Tactics, who are quite competitively minded, agree that the edition is 'a bit much'. Great video of good perspective.




A lot of very good points raised in this video. I’m always glad when the guys at Tabletop Tactics let their opinions be heard.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/16 02:15:33


Apocalypse/40K: Orks, Imperial Guard, Eldar, Space Wolves, Necrons, Dark Eldar
AOS: Stormcast, Sons of Behemat (Mantic and D&D giants)
Blood Bowl: Orcs, Dark Elves, Chaos Dwarves, Undead, Wood/Pro Elves, Humans, Skaven, Goblins, Dwarves, Necromantic, Khemri, Snotlings, Underworld, Vampires, Lizardmen, Chaos, Amazons, Ogres, Halflings 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




NE Ohio, USA

 AnomanderRake wrote:

I bought a Primaris army going into 9th because I thought there was less chance GW would screw me over if I had new models. Made the mistake of building them as Deathwatch, pauldrons and all. And then GW decided that what the Deathwatch really needed was to be turned into a slightly more complicated way of playing Space Marines with no Chapter Tactics. My 8e Codexes were terrible. My experience of playing 9e with a 9e Codex has been pretty terrible. And the "oh, but you're using an 8e Codex still!" is a pretty awful argument, given that you're again presenting players with the choice of getting beaten up because of cross-edition power creep, not playing for ~half an edition every cycle (sometimes more, sometimes less), or buying a different army. GW didn't do Indexes at the start of 9th, they said "you can still use your 8e Codex and it's fine!" And given that pretty much my sole bar for the quality of a minis game is "I can put models I like on the table, push them around, and have something resembling a close game!" saying "9e is great so long as you ignore all the Codexes that haven't yet been updated" isn't particularly helpful.


So am I reading this right that you built an entire new army for 9th, of one of the chapters that's noted for having specialized rules (wich always shift edition to edition) using the 8th ed codex, - when you knew up front/very early on that DW was to be one of the initial codex books? But you just couldn't wait that 8-10 weeks or whatever from 9es launch for the new book to arrive....
If so, that sounds like a sure fire way to set yourself up for disappointment.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





ccs wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:

I bought a Primaris army going into 9th because I thought there was less chance GW would screw me over if I had new models. Made the mistake of building them as Deathwatch, pauldrons and all. And then GW decided that what the Deathwatch really needed was to be turned into a slightly more complicated way of playing Space Marines with no Chapter Tactics. My 8e Codexes were terrible. My experience of playing 9e with a 9e Codex has been pretty terrible. And the "oh, but you're using an 8e Codex still!" is a pretty awful argument, given that you're again presenting players with the choice of getting beaten up because of cross-edition power creep, not playing for ~half an edition every cycle (sometimes more, sometimes less), or buying a different army. GW didn't do Indexes at the start of 9th, they said "you can still use your 8e Codex and it's fine!" And given that pretty much my sole bar for the quality of a minis game is "I can put models I like on the table, push them around, and have something resembling a close game!" saying "9e is great so long as you ignore all the Codexes that haven't yet been updated" isn't particularly helpful.


So am I reading this right that you built an entire new army for 9th, of one of the chapters that's noted for having specialized rules (wich always shift edition to edition) using the 8th ed codex, - when you knew up front/very early on that DW was to be one of the initial codex books? But you just couldn't wait that 8-10 weeks or whatever from 9es launch for the new book to arrive....
If so, that sounds like a sure fire way to set yourself up for disappointment.


It says something that building an army a way that currently exists means you're "setting yourself up for disappointment" when that army gets updated. Frankly, that just shouldn't be the way of things. When a game is updated, you ideally ought to be quite pleased with the new ways you can play with your army, the new rules, and the new units that are added. Having an army invalidated because of an update just sucks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Gnarlly wrote:
PenitentJake wrote:

Also, even Tabletop Tactics, who are quite competitively minded, agree that the edition is 'a bit much'. Great video of good perspective.




A lot of very good points raised in this video. I’m always glad when the guys at Tabletop Tactics let their opinions be heard.


My genuine hope is that they're delivering this feedback to GW. They are, after all, one of the playtesters and contributed quite a bit to the development of 8th and 9th edition. So if Spider and Chef in particular see issues, the hope is that they're giving this constructive feedback to get improvements into the next edition.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/16 05:26:31


 
   
Made in it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

drbored wrote:


It says something that building an army a way that currently exists means you're "setting yourself up for disappointment" when that army gets updated. Frankly, that just shouldn't be the way of things. When a game is updated, you ideally ought to be quite pleased with the new ways you can play with your army, the new rules, and the new units that are added. Having an army invalidated because of an update just sucks.



It depends on how you build the army. If it's a competitive take for an older edition you can't be surprised if it doesn't work in the current one. That's why I ALWAYS suggest people that are about to start a new army to get a bit of everything, regardless of how those armies currently work. This way they'll never field the flavour of the month but they'll also always have functioning lists. I still play with the Space Wolves I've bought during 5th-7th editions, full firstborn army (3500ish points). It's not a skew collection of a few units, so it works fairly good: I won't win any tournament, even local ones, but I'm doing ok against anyone that is not willing to replace his army every year. I didn't have to buy a single primaris dude just to make it viable.

And primaris/gravis dudes are good enough that any collection of SM made from starters actually works perfectly fine (if not even too good) at casual levels, regardless of the chapter. I found hard to believe that a full Deathwatch primaris/gravis collection of models doesn't work at all. Unless maybe it's an actual skew list from an older edition.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/16 07:16:37



 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




NE Ohio, USA

drbored wrote:
ccs wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:

I bought a Primaris army going into 9th because I thought there was less chance GW would screw me over if I had new models. Made the mistake of building them as Deathwatch, pauldrons and all. And then GW decided that what the Deathwatch really needed was to be turned into a slightly more complicated way of playing Space Marines with no Chapter Tactics. My 8e Codexes were terrible. My experience of playing 9e with a 9e Codex has been pretty terrible. And the "oh, but you're using an 8e Codex still!" is a pretty awful argument, given that you're again presenting players with the choice of getting beaten up because of cross-edition power creep, not playing for ~half an edition every cycle (sometimes more, sometimes less), or buying a different army. GW didn't do Indexes at the start of 9th, they said "you can still use your 8e Codex and it's fine!" And given that pretty much my sole bar for the quality of a minis game is "I can put models I like on the table, push them around, and have something resembling a close game!" saying "9e is great so long as you ignore all the Codexes that haven't yet been updated" isn't particularly helpful.


So am I reading this right that you built an entire new army for 9th, of one of the chapters that's noted for having specialized rules (wich always shift edition to edition) using the 8th ed codex, - when you knew up front/very early on that DW was to be one of the initial codex books? But you just couldn't wait that 8-10 weeks or whatever from 9es launch for the new book to arrive....
If so, that sounds like a sure fire way to set yourself up for disappointment.


It says something that building an army a way that currently exists means you're "setting yourself up for disappointment" when that army gets updated. Frankly, that just shouldn't be the way of things. When a game is updated, you ideally ought to be quite pleased with the new ways you can play with your army, the new rules, and the new units that are added. Having an army invalidated because of an update just sucks.


Yes, but that way that existed at that moment(assuming I'm reading Rake correctly)? Was for A) a faction that every time it appears has had funky different rules, & not quite the same twice - wich is really important/sometimes costly when setting up units, & B) only weeks away from having its 9e version hit the shelves.
I mean, I'd barely assembled anything from my Indom box & I already knew that the next two books after SM/Necron were SW & DW. It wasn't a secret.
And while I'm in no way a proponent of the typical Dakka advice of "Wait for____ "(next faq/next CA/next tourney/or codex - when there's zero indication how long that wait will be). If I knew the book was only weeks away, even I'd advise "Wait". Afterall, why would you build the funky rules army to the previous standard at the last moment, with the new book almost within reach & gamble??
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut



Bamberg / Erlangen

 Peakab00 wrote:
How is anyone realistically supposed to know all the potential stats, relics, customs, special rules involved in an army? I'm finding this is almost taken the just play/have fun element out of game, any finding all the rules involved almost too much to learn ? Also creating an army list seems way more complex than I can previously remember. How can I simplify all this ?

I started playing my old IG army last Tuesday (after being on the shelf for 10 years) and how I approached it was this:
- Picked the units I wanted to use and put them into a list
- Read through the stratagems each unit I included could use (it is consolidated on Wahapedia)
- Noted down which ones sounded good to me, which was 1 per unit, most of the time. Notable exception being Scions who had 4.
- Picked whatever relics and Warlord traits sounded good to me
- Played the game

After one 1000p game I already memorised the profile for each unit and the Stratagems that I made use of while playing.

This is more than you had to do 15 years ago during 4th edition, but I'm sure you will manage.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/16 07:58:01


Imperial Guard Space Marines
 
   
Made in it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

Yeah, another thing I can't understand is why some people feel the need to know everything about everything since the beginning. Read the codex once, focus on the units you like or have, focus on the rules that you think suit those units better and start playing. A codex lasts 3 years on average, there's plenty of time to try all the combinations someone may want to try at some point.

I flat out ignored large portions of my 7th/8th/9th codexes because they involved units/items/chapters/tactics/formations I wasn't interested in, regardless of how they performed. Specifically I haven't read a single line about primaris/gravis stuff for my SW and anything Snagga related for orks. There are also some klans I'll never even try because I don't like their style of playing (which is pretty clear by reading once their dedicated page) and/or their lore, so I can skip all their rules. Where's the issue?

It's another iteration of the GIMME EVERYTHING NOW!!! concept, that I strongly dislike.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/16 08:13:17



 
   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

just reading a little bit, buying units for 600€, reading another bit and realsing that you like other stuff more, put 600€ on the shelf and buy something new?

people want to know everything from the start because 40k is that expensive that you want to make sure you get the stuff you like the first time
 Blackie wrote:
I still play with the Space Wolves I've bought during 5th-7th editions, full firstborn army (3500ish points)

This just means that you need a big collection of models to be future proof and going with a 1500 point army now, you end up with not enough the next CA if you have bad luck

having double the amount of models you need for a list, your chance is good that you still have enough no matter the changes (unless they bring back 7th Edi like formation, than your 3,5k points might be 500-1000 points short for a 2k game)

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

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

I believe people should play with half their collections or less, yes. Are you interested in 2000 points games? Then 3500-4000 points collections are recommended. You can change a lot of lists and when things are inevitable shaken up you'll always be able to play decent lists. Do you have 1500-2000 points of models? Focus on 1000 points games.

My point is that people demands everything now. To buy, build and paint 3500 points of SW took me something like 5 years and a couple of editions.

Someone that starts should aim at 1000 points games probably for years. That's what I did when I was a kid. Buying 600 euro of stuff and adding a lot more just after a few months or 1 year because in the meanwhile things changed is insane, I hope no ones is suggesting that is the way to go. Unless we're talking about people that are willing to pay that much in such short period of time and can actually afford it as no big deal; in that case it's their choice and I respect it.

But I can't understand those who want to play at the higher format immediately and be ok with that collection forever. 2k games are not meant for beginners, let alone tournaments.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/16 11:28:49



 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Tawnis wrote:
...While your complaints about 9th are certainly valid, this seems just as much an issue with the people in your community being meta chasing win at all cost nobheads.


I one hundred percent accept that the people I play with are all dicks, which is a big part of me not playing 9th. That said I get the exact same lectures here on Dakka as I do in person from those guys when I make the same observations, which leads me to think that it could be a broader problem.


There is technically a third option - make up a quick fandex.

After the news that codex csm would be waiting until 2022, my group (which has several csm players) held a little show of hands and agreed to edit the csm codex with the likely upcoming stat changes, including the known datasheets for things like daemon princes, daemon engines etc from codex thousand sons. We also added two-part legion traits for the legions leaning heavily on existing traits as 'obviously fair' since theyre in other codexes, and added a simple rule in place of doctrines.

weve got it pinned on the discord, and when playing their CSM army people generally ask 'cool if I use the club rules?'

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

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Blackie wrote:
I believe people should play with half their collections or less, yes. Are you interested in 2000 points games? Then 3500-4000 points collections are recommended. You can change a lot of lists and when things are inevitable shaken up you'll always be able to play decent lists. Do you have 1500-2000 points of models? Focus on 1000 points games.

My point is that people demands everything now. To buy, build and paint 3500 points of SW took me something like 5 years and a couple of editions.

Someone that starts should aim at 1000 points games probably for years. That's what I did when I was a kid. Buying 600 euro of stuff and adding a lot more just after a few months or 1 year because in the meanwhile things changed is insane, I hope no ones is suggesting that is the way to go. Unless we're talking about people that are willing to pay that much in such short period of time and can actually afford it as no big deal; in that case it's their choice and I respect it.

But I can't understand those who want to play at the higher format immediately and be ok with that collection forever. 2k games are not meant for beginners, let alone tournaments.


I think its a mentality thing - especially if you are older.

So I've got some friends who want to branch out from 40k (boo hiss). But I look at things like Bolt Action, or ASOIAF minuatures game. And I want to know *everything*. What are all the miniatures, factions, special rules etc. And you do have this mindset of "I'm going to buy 1 army, whatever the standard is, and thats it, so it better be right". (I.E. I need to like how it looks and plays, but it also needs to not be completely rubbish rules wise because I won't enjoy just losing all the time.)

Its very different to say how I started 40k, which was with a bunch of other people at a young age - and so we could all just progressively expand our collections by 500 points every 6-12 months.
   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

 Blackie wrote:
Someone that starts should aim at 1000 points games probably for years

a new Edition every 3 years and a new Codex within each new Edition, starting with a 1000 point games now (with the Edition being 1 year old, and the faction you want has no new Codex), you need 2000 points worth of models within a year to be save to have enough your new Codex or a new Edition changes things (or even CA might change points and you need 1-2 different units within half a year)

you needed 5 years to collect you 4k army how many different Editions and Codex have you seen during that 5 years?

now you need to collect those 4k within half the time to be save because otherwise you might end up with those problems

hence why people want everything now, because small amounts over a long period now means "within a year"


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 ie
Ruthless Rafkin





 Blackie wrote:
I believe people should play with half their collections or less, yes. Are you interested in 2000 points games? Then 3500-4000 points collections are recommended. You can change a lot of lists and when things are inevitable shaken up you'll always be able to play decent lists. Do you have 1500-2000 points of models? Focus on 1000 points games.

My point is that people demands everything now. To buy, build and paint 3500 points of SW took me something like 5 years and a couple of editions.

Someone that starts should aim at 1000 points games probably for years. That's what I did when I was a kid. Buying 600 euro of stuff and adding a lot more just after a few months or 1 year because in the meanwhile things changed is insane, I hope no ones is suggesting that is the way to go. Unless we're talking about people that are willing to pay that much in such short period of time and can actually afford it as no big deal; in that case it's their choice and I respect it.

But I can't understand those who want to play at the higher format immediately and be ok with that collection forever. 2k games are not meant for beginners, let alone tournaments.


So we're back to "just buy better models"?


 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 Peakab00 wrote:
Got back into playing 40k After 15 years away, I thought Id start with ORKS - Remembering them being a fairly easy race to pick-up, problem being they is only one real tactic with them and that's "rush" everything forward and close, and see how it pans out, So new Codex brought - absolute mind scramble! The rule changes and stratagems I cannot recall 40k being this complex several releases ago. absolute mountain of information to process almost takes the fun out of it?

How is anyone realistically supposed to know all the potential stats, relics, customs, special rules involved in an army? I'm finding this is almost taken the just play/have fun element out of game, any finding all the rules involved almost too much to learn ? Also creating an army list seems way more complex than I can previously remember. How can I simplify all this ?


15 years away - IIRC this would be fifth edition then - basically, a lot of the 'micro-wargear' choices from fifth edition's strategy layer have been shifted to traits, subfactions, and relics.

for the most part, the easiest way to approach it is: Just pick one of each you like, write that down, and remember that one.

You get 1 free warlord trait (on the model you designate as your Warlord, which matters sometimes in missions and such) and 1 free relic on a character in the warlord's detachment...which can and frequently is also just the same model who got the warlord trait.

So you take your Warboss, and you give him a trait, you give him a relic, and then you're done if you want to be. Your warboss has a fancy melee weapon instead of a regular power klaw or choppa, and he's got a trait that makes him hit extra good, or live extra long, or something.

and as for how to simplify army building: Remember the force org chart? 1 HQ, 2 troops, 3 of each slot?

That's called "Battalion" now. 2 HQ, 3 troops, 3 of each slot. Build your whole army into that, and you start out with the maximum number of command points. If you're playign a smaller game, you can go for a "Patrol" - 1HQ, 1 Troops, 2 extra of each slot.

Basically, "Patrol" "Battalion" and "Brigade" are the three basic detachments, and they pretty much work like the old force org slot but they allow for flexibility, like if you want to play a really small game or a really big game.

The rest of them - 'outrider' 'spearhead' 'vanguard' etc are there to replace the thing from fifth edition where sometimes you could take a biker character and make bikes troops, or take a terminator character and make terminators troops. Nobody can 'move around slots' anymore, instead you can just pay some of your command points in order to take a list that's got lots of fast attack, or a list that's got lots of heavy supports. it's there to make those kind of 'spam lists' cost you a resource to offset the natural advantage you get from having an imbalanced army composition.

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

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







It's a mentality thing and an expectation thing. In 4th, your opponent could be like:
"Huh, looks like a tactical squad with a power sword sergeant, plasma gun, and lascannon. Six men, of course." And then tease you about the six man Las-Plas squad spam.
Or
"Wow, that's a lot of Leman Russes. I see you have a Vanquisher there and an Exterminator there..."

In each case, it is easy simply from looking at the models what each unit does. Las plas squad spams high strength AP2 and with the power sword is surprisingly choppy in melee. I know this because I have lascannons, plasma guns, and power swords in my army.

A Vanquisher? For the war enthusiast, it is obviously a tank hunter - longer barrel, more velocity.

An exterminator? Well I know what auto cannons are - a common weapon across a few armies! - so I can see this has a twin-linked autocannon. No blast, rerolls to hit. Because I also know what Twin Linked does.

Nowadays?
*Oh, this Russ is a Tank Commander. The weapon is the Hammer of Sunderance, not just a battle cannon. He can get the Relentless stratagem to ignore damage, or the Hail of Fire stratagem to max his number of shots against tanks. He has Vengeance for Cadia (if you're Chaos), Defensive Gunners (if you charge him), and possibly hits on 2s rerolling 1s (if you are Vostroyan)." None of which is apparent from looking at the model.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/16 11:55:22


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





drbored wrote:
My genuine hope is that they're delivering this feedback to GW. They are, after all, one of the playtesters and contributed quite a bit to the development of 8th and 9th edition. So if Spider and Chef in particular see issues, the hope is that they're giving this constructive feedback to get improvements into the next edition.


Some of their suggestions? No.

Open digital rules? Yes. More limitations on strat use and/or CP pool? Yes.

   
Made in us
Painting Within the Lines





Tangentville, New Jersey

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It's a mentality thing and an expectation thing. In 4th, your opponent could be like:
"Huh, looks like a tactical squad with a power sword sergeant, plasma gun, and lascannon. Six men, of course." And then tease you about the six man Las-Plas squad spam.
Or
"Wow, that's a lot of Leman Russes. I see you have a Vanquisher there and an Exterminator there..."

In each case, it is easy simply from looking at the models what each unit does. Las plas squad spams high strength AP2 and with the power sword is surprisingly choppy in melee. I know this because I have lascannons, plasma guns, and power swords in my army.

A Vanquisher? For the war enthusiast, it is obviously a tank hunter - longer barrel, more velocity.

An exterminator? Well I know what auto cannons are - a common weapon across a few armies! - so I can see this has a twin-linked autocannon. No blast, rerolls to hit. Because I also know what Twin Linked does.

Nowadays?
*Oh, this Russ is a Tank Commander. The weapon is the Hammer of Sunderance, not just a battle cannon. He can get the Relentless stratagem to ignore damage, or the Hail of Fire stratagem to max his number of shots against tanks. He has Vengeance for Cadia (if you're Chaos), Defensive Gunners (if you charge him), and possibly hits on 2s rerolling 1s (if you are Vostroyan)." None of which is apparent from looking at the model.


I can't exalt this enough. I felt this shift started with formations.


 
   
Made in gb
Lit By the Flames of Prospero






 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It's a mentality thing and an expectation thing. In 4th, your opponent could be like:
"Huh, looks like a tactical squad with a power sword sergeant, plasma gun, and lascannon. Six men, of course." And then tease you about the six man Las-Plas squad spam.
Or
"Wow, that's a lot of Leman Russes. I see you have a Vanquisher there and an Exterminator there..."

In each case, it is easy simply from looking at the models what each unit does. Las plas squad spams high strength AP2 and with the power sword is surprisingly choppy in melee. I know this because I have lascannons, plasma guns, and power swords in my army.

A Vanquisher? For the war enthusiast, it is obviously a tank hunter - longer barrel, more velocity.

An exterminator? Well I know what auto cannons are - a common weapon across a few armies! - so I can see this has a twin-linked autocannon. No blast, rerolls to hit. Because I also know what Twin Linked does.

Up until this point, all of this is still true. There isn't a single thing here that doesn't apply to 9th Edition.

Nowadays?
*Oh, this Russ is a Tank Commander. The weapon is the Hammer of Sunderance, not just a battle cannon. He can get the Relentless stratagem to ignore damage, or the Hail of Fire stratagem to max his number of shots against tanks. He has Vengeance for Cadia (if you're Chaos), Defensive Gunners (if you charge him), and possibly hits on 2s rerolling 1s (if you are Vostroyan)." None of which is apparent from looking at the model.

Good job you've spent at least 4/5 CP on a single unit for a single turn of advantages. Now you're 5 CP down the hole and it's only turn 2.
As for the "not obvious on the model", that's all relics. Of course, you only get one free Relic and models can only be equipped with one nad often it's limited to "X model only" or "unit equipped with X wargear only", unlike in previous Editions where you could stick the Burning Blade, Shield Eternal and Armour Indomitus/whatever all on the same Chapter Master making him almost impossible to kill while he tears your entire army a new one.
But hey, screw 9th Edition am I right?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/16 14:14:04


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Nowadays?
*Oh, this Russ is a Tank Commander. The weapon is the Hammer of Sunderance, not just a battle cannon. He can get the Relentless stratagem to ignore damage, or the Hail of Fire stratagem to max his number of shots against tanks. He has Vengeance for Cadia (if you're Chaos), Defensive Gunners (if you charge him), and possibly hits on 2s rerolling 1s (if you are Vostroyan)." None of which is apparent from looking at the model.


"This TC has a battle cannon relic, which I can amp up through strats. If you go after him I may make him tougher to kill. Charging vehicles in my army can be dangerous."

Then you get into details if they ask or when it matters.

And your example is not very different from:

"This Exterminator has a rear armor of 10 while this Executioner has a rear armor of 11"
"This ordnance battery has a Griffon and two Medusas, but the Griffon can reroll scatter dice. Now the Griffon does have a minimum range where the Medusa doesn't. If I use the breacher shells on the Medusa I'll get an extra D6 on the AP roll. "
"I have given this tank Pask as an upgrade. That means he hits on 3s instead and if he stands still I get Crack Shot, which means +1 on armor pen or rerolls to wound vs MC."
"Now, Al'Raheim here has a special order that...."
"I bought conscripts the upgrade allowed by Chenkov, which..."

None of these things are apparent by looking at the model.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/16 14:15:18


   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Nowadays?
*Oh, this Russ is a Tank Commander. The weapon is the Hammer of Sunderance, not just a battle cannon. He can get the Relentless stratagem to ignore damage, or the Hail of Fire stratagem to max his number of shots against tanks. He has Vengeance for Cadia (if you're Chaos), Defensive Gunners (if you charge him), and possibly hits on 2s rerolling 1s (if you are Vostroyan)." None of which is apparent from looking at the model.


"This TC has a battle cannon relic, which I can amp up through strats. If you go after him I may make him tougher to kill. Charging vehicles in my army can be dangerous."

Then you get into details if they ask or when it matters.

And your example is not very different from:

"This Exterminator has a rear armor of 10 while this Executioner has a rear armor of 11"
"This ordnance battery has a Griffon and two Medusas, but the Griffon can reroll scatter dice. Now the Griffon does have a minimum range where the Medusa doesn't. If I use the breacher shells on the Medusa I'll get an extra D6 on the AP roll. "
"I have given this tank Pask as an upgrade. That means he hits on 3s instead and if he stands still I get Crack Shot, which means +1 on armor pen or rerolls to wound vs MC."
"Now, Al'Raheim here has a special order that...."
"I bought conscripts the upgrade allowed by Chenkov, which..."

None of these things are apparent by looking at the model.



Most of what you talk about was a problem in 5th and beyond... which may have something to do with why 4th is the edition I'd like to go back to, thanks. But yes, you're right, those were problems in 5th and was part of why IG was so infuriating to play against in 5th.

ALSO REMEMBER: 5th was designed by Alessio Cavatore to "streamline" 40k. Much like 8th... *thinkyface*

The only applicable one is the Rear Armor one - and would you look at that, until they updated the Russ kit (in 5th!), the Demolisher tank kit (the only RA11 one at the time) actually came with additional pewter armor bits to thicken the armor. Whaddya know!

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/09/16 14:19:46


 
   
Made in us
Using Object Source Lighting





Portland

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Nowadays?
*Oh, this Russ is a Tank Commander. The weapon is the Hammer of Sunderance, not just a battle cannon. He can get the Relentless stratagem to ignore damage, or the Hail of Fire stratagem to max his number of shots against tanks. He has Vengeance for Cadia (if you're Chaos), Defensive Gunners (if you charge him), and possibly hits on 2s rerolling 1s (if you are Vostroyan)." None of which is apparent from looking at the model.

Yeah, great comparison. There are a lot of neat options, and once you get to know an opposing army/player it's very often not very cumbersome (I can expect x buff, y souped up characters, and these are the two offensive and defensive stratagems I'll need to contend with), but if you're not actively keeping up (and I don't), it can be nuts trying to figure out which version of what it is you're fighting, between individual unit options and subfaction options, guns that now look the same but have significantly different stats, and the ability to buy buffs during the game.

There are a lot of parts I genuinely enjoy in 8-9th 40k, but I do miss being able to glance at units and know, or learn after a brief exchange, exactly what models are capable of. Now, each unit has a more unique feel but that comes at a significant price to legibility, when the game plays with a relatively high unit count etc.


My painted armies (40k, WM/H, Malifaux, Infinity...) 
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon





I understand that it can be overwhelming but we've just had 2 players come back to the game and the last they played was around 3rd/4th edition. They felt the same way (one is now playing Grey Knights and the codex blew his mind). However, you have to just take a deep breath and start simple.
What I did was meet them at a store, take 2 armies with simple units at around 750ish points (maybe more). I then had them play the game with me walking them through each step (helping both sides)
Second game I played vs the GK player bringing a basic Eldar force. This time we played a mission but ignored secondary points. Like the first game, I talked him through each step, etc. Only thing I did not know was his new rules and strats. Still, we had a good game and he has a basic understanding of the mechanics. This game, even though only 1000pts each, took 3 1/2 hours. we both had the time so we used it to walk through each step, have him find the relevant parts in the codex etc.
Tomorrow we are playing another game, this time with 2 9th edition codexes. He has been learning more about his strategems so will see another layer of complexity.

This is really the way to do it. Start small....remove the extra layers and play the basics, then add a little extra each game.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/16 15:30:46


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

 Daedalus81 wrote:
And your example is not very different from:

"This Exterminator has a rear armor of 10 while this Executioner has a rear armor of 11"
"This ordnance battery has a Griffon and two Medusas, but the Griffon can reroll scatter dice. Now the Griffon does have a minimum range where the Medusa doesn't. If I use the breacher shells on the Medusa I'll get an extra D6 on the AP roll. "
"I have given this tank Pask as an upgrade. That means he hits on 3s instead and if he stands still I get Crack Shot, which means +1 on armor pen or rerolls to wound vs MC."
"Now, Al'Raheim here has a special order that...."
"I bought conscripts the upgrade allowed by Chenkov, which..."


So we have an upgrade which is (or at least was) represented on the model, two oddball artillery pieces that your opponent might ask about because they don't have the weapon in their own army, and then three special characters from a codex that really didn't need them. Not really commonplace stuff.

Meanwhile in 9th Ed, the focus on synergy abilities and Stratagems means everything is like that. More to the point, they facilitate rule-breaking that means that any reasonable inferences you make about a unit's capabilities have a decent chance of being completely wrong.

If you're new you might guess from the models that Genestealers move the typical 6" as infantry and then charge. If you look at the datasheet you realize they can move 8", advance, and charge, so you stay about 20" away to be out of their typical threat range. But oops, they're Krakenstealers being move-twiced by the Swarmlord under Opportunistic Advance, and they can actually move an average of 31" before they charge.

If you're learning on your own, you wouldn't see this coming unless you know the codex well enough to be aware of an interaction between a specific character, subfaction, and stratagem. Even seeing the Genestealer datasheet isn't enough.

Obviously I could tell you in advance that Genestealers are actually super duper ridiculously fast if I spend CP and I could explain the Swarmlord's ability- but going through the entire army to explain the context under which any given unit can be supercharged is cumbersome, and with it being unintuitive from the models it's difficult to retain that information. I've seen a couple of new players get into the game and all of them take a lot longer to remember which units get to use a particular stratagem than what a lascannon looks like and what it does.

It's much easier for me to walk you through what all the visible wargear pieces than all the stratagems and abilities that might maybe potentially come up in-game. If you ask me for an overview of my army, I am probably not going to mention Implant Attack as a stratagem, as I only ever use it once in a blue moon, but in the rare event that your character heroically survives with one wound left I'll spend that 1CP to kill him and that'll probably be a feels-bad moment.

And I'm not even getting into how it all changes if those Genestealers are being played as Hydra instead of Kraken, and those heuristics you've established as a new player go out the window.

I think this:

"This TC has a battle cannon relic, which I can amp up through strats. If you go after him I may make him tougher to kill. Charging vehicles in my army can be dangerous."


Is exactly the point. In 9th, if you want to complete a game in a reasonable time you can't explain the nitty-gritty of a unit's full capabilities from the outset. It's assumed that you inform your opponent about your capabilities as they become relevant, because there's just too much crap that isn't obvious for you to explain or for them to remember. Most players seem to settle for learning the major stratagems and notable combos of their regular opponents and accept that they'll get blindsided from time to time, because actually learning the rules in full is unrealistic.

It absolutely has not always been like this.

Edit: And yes, I'll agree that if you strip out all the complexity and run a series of intro games you can teach a totally new player and have them playing 'full rules' within 5 games or so, at least to that level of 'I know generally what your army can do but you still need to explain it to me' level. It's not completely insurmountable. The point is that back in 3rd/4th, I didn't have to do that- typically one game without vehicles, then another with vehicles, and you're good to go. The learning curve has been made significantly steeper by intangible factors that add major cognitive burden to new players and experienced ones alike.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/16 15:42:55


   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: