Switch Theme:

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


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




Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 the_scotsman wrote:

Sorry, you dropped an extra "0" in there friend, I think you meant "12+ boyz"




Fair enough

   
Made in ie
Dakka Veteran




Ireland

40k peaked with the 3rd edition rulebook. That book is as near as perfect GW will ever make 40k. It had simple, yet challenging core rules (which means the game is quick to play) army list (with themed alternative sub factions), how to make terrain, how to paint models, a battle report, designer's notes, etc.

Every edition since has been a weak imitation of 3rd edition.

Other than that, I'd urge people to play Grimdark Future by One Page Rules. It does a lot of things right, and offers a game that plays better than 40k has in decades. Mainly due to alternative activations, but also helped by not having geographical layers of rules and special rules that cause interaction issues.

40k has been a mess for a long time, lovely models for the most part, but the rules leave a lot to be desired.

The objective of the game is to win. The point of the game is to have fun. The two should never be confused. 
   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

GDF is the game 8th wanted to be

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 es
[DCM]
Secret Inquisitorial Eldar Xenexecutor






your mind

Have to agree that third may have been best rules, with a soft spot for second imho… was it peak 40k? Maybe game wise, hobby wise, perhaps not model wise though I do miss metals and not popularity wise. The new subscription model for everything from software to cars to vaxxines is a social problem bigger than gw and correlates with “peak” as there is only down from here. So, in the end, I think that this is correct. Third Ed was peak, and down in every real way since.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 kodos wrote:
GDF is the game 8th wanted to be
exalted.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/25 06:50:01


   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 jeff white wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
 kodos wrote:
GDF is the game 8th wanted to be
exalted.


Are you sure? Because GDF is so stripped down and totally contrary to many arguments made here.

Necron Warriors - 5 models only. Hit on 3s. Save on 3s with a stackable FNP. Moves 4". 1 shot that on 6s to hit is AP4 and ignores FNP. 130 points
Marines - 5 models only. Hit on 3s. Save on 2s. 1 shot only, ever. 150 points

Warriors are just far better for less points.

And then you have a "Fusion Rifle" for 20 points that does 6 damage and is AP4. There's no wounding so if you hit anything with it and they only have a defense of 3+ then it's taking 6 wounds. How many wounds does a Ghost Ark have? 6. Costs 225 points and has a 1 in 6 chance to not die if it gets hit by that gun.

No thanks.

   
Made in ie
Ruthless Rafkin





 Daedalus81 wrote:
 jeff white wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
 kodos wrote:
GDF is the game 8th wanted to be
exalted.


Are you sure? Because GDF is so stripped down and totally contrary to many arguments made here.



Didn't realise we were a hive mind.


 
   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

 Daedalus81 wrote:
 jeff white wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
 kodos wrote:
GDF is the game 8th wanted to be
exalted.


Are you sure? Because GDF is so stripped down and totally contrary to many arguments made here.


Yes, this is the game GW wanted to make with 8th but for whatever reason where not able to do, a stripped down easy to get into set of rules that is on as less pages as possible
Never said that this is what people wanted or that it is the best/balanced version of 40k out there

but if someone liked 8th, he should love GDF. It also brings in the 40k feeling people are defending and missing on other games that aim for a different gameplay

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 es
[DCM]
Secret Inquisitorial Eldar Xenexecutor






your mind

This^^ gets it right. Not for me but seems to be what 8th coulda shoulda been, maybe was intended to be…
And for reference, this is where we started with that:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
 stonehorse wrote:
Spoiler:
40k peaked with the 3rd edition rulebook. That book is as near as perfect GW will ever make 40k. It had simple, yet challenging core rules (which means the game is quick to play) army list (with themed alternative sub factions), how to make terrain, how to paint models, a battle report, designer's notes, etc.
Every edition since has been a weak imitation of 3rd edition.
Other than that,
I'd urge people to play Grimdark Future by One Page Rules. It does a lot of things right,
Spoiler:
and offers a game that plays better than 40k has in decades. Mainly due to alternative activations, but also helped by not having geographical layers of rules and special rules that cause interaction issues.

40k has been a mess for a long time, lovely models for the most part, but the rules leave a lot to be desired.

It does a lot of things right… house rules for the other stuff is sop anyways, no?

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/09/26 20:38:35


   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





From my perspective, one of the best things about 8th and 9th, and certainly the reason I personally like these editions is that at last, EVERY faction's subfactions perform differently on the table, not just Space Marines (always) and a handful of lucky factions that get bespoke subfaction content in some editions but not others.

By that barometer, one page rules is the exact polar opposite of what I want in a game. It also seems to be the polar opposite of what GW wanted, since they did give unique subfaction rules to every faction in both of the most recent editions.

I've put up with Space Wolves and Blood Angels being special for thirty years while there was never a difference between my Order of Our Martyred Lady and my Argent Shroud.

I think GW finally figured out that's bad for everyone except space marines. I think they decided to change.

I'm glad.

Your mileage may vary.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 Sim-Life wrote:
Didn't realise we were a hive mind.


I didn't infer that, but the vast majority of the arguments here are about how 3rd or 4th or 5th are better for any variety of reasons that don't exist in GDR aside from USRs.

I mean...

Back does seem the new way forward, back and outside of the corporate envelope.

   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

and those things also don't exist in 8th/9th either

so those who like 3rd-5th more than 8th/9th for whatever rules/flavour those had that the others don't won't also be happy with GDF (like myself)
while GDF still does a better job in offering the streamlining and removing bloat 8th promised but never delivered

GDF being the better 8th/9th Edition does not contradict the argument that 3rd Edition was better than 8th

PenitentJake wrote:
Your mileage may vary.

kind of, the most diverse Marine lists were in 4th were you could add flavour that made them play unique without going the way of "this chapter is playing the same as all others but doing that 1 list better than everyone else" (I think it was 4th with the doctrines in the Codex were 3rd had Chapter rules in White Dwarf Articles?)

and going with different playstyle, there is not much difference in 40k anyway, even within the old editions it was more or less just one playstyle for everyone and the OP faction did it better than everyone else rather than having the option to play different

for me 8th/9th is not very different from 3rd/4th here

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/27 06:34:45


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 jp
Trigger-Happy Baal Predator Pilot






Sydney, Australia

5th edition, pre-Grey Knights Ward was the best the game has ever felt to me from a show up at an event and most lists can fight most other lists

Were the lists a little bland? Maybe. But the games were balanced.

Then Grey Knights threw balance out the window, and allies ruined the entire eco-system of 40k


Prior to allies 40k armies were designed with a clear, strength and weakness factor. Good shooting fragile in melee. Bad shooting, strong in melee, etc.
Once we had allies everyone covered up their weakness with spot units and armies lost all sense of character and theme....

I remember winning West Australian masters with my highly thematic White Scars army with 3 Centurians + Shadowsun to give them all stealth and infiltrate...just like in the lore...

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/10/01 00:00:16


   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 Roleplayer wrote:
I remember winning West Australian masters with my highly thematic White Scars army with 3 Centurians + Shadowsun to give them all stealth and infiltrate...just like in the lore...
Shadowsun, of course, being a well-known and celebrated heroine of the Imperium.

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

 
   
Made in jp
Trigger-Happy Baal Predator Pilot






Sydney, Australia

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Roleplayer wrote:
I remember winning West Australian masters with my highly thematic White Scars army with 3 Centurians + Shadowsun to give them all stealth and infiltrate...just like in the lore...
Shadowsun, of course, being a well-known and celebrated heroine of the Imperium.


Its always a good feeling to win a competitive event with a thematic army list.

   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




 stonehorse wrote:
40k peaked with the 3rd edition rulebook. That book is as near as perfect GW will ever make 40k. It had simple, yet challenging core rules (which means the game is quick to play) army list (with themed alternative sub factions), how to make terrain, how to paint models, a battle report, designer's notes, etc.


I definitely agree on the lore side of 3rd edition. It was peak 40k. Probably the most grimdark, it really set the tone of what to expect.

On a tabletop game side definitely 5th edition for me. All it needed was a good FAQ to iron out some of the abuse and some point adjustments. That's it. Perfect.
   
Made in dk
Khorne Veteran Marine with Chain-Axe






8th edition was about as terrible a direction GW could go in terms of worst case scenarios. 9th is helping it alittle.

Fallback, stratgems and constant imbalance. And now they are doubleing down on sucking customers dry and holding back on 2w Chaos (because codex sale).

7th was the edition i had most fun in (when not playing against waac players.) 8th was the most frustrateing. 5th was nice, but very bland overall.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/12 22:55:56


6000 World Eaters/Khorne  
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




The game's well into one of its periodic contractions at this point, and you can clearly trace it back to when the DE codex came out; the game's been broken since then and more and more people have gotten more and more disenchanted. You know things are pretty bad when youtube people start admitting there's a problem and the views aren't coming like they used to be.
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

The problem with these "contractions" - good way of putting it, BTW - is that GW will apply it to all future Codices without considering how it should affect existing ones.

This will lead to a pre- and post-contraction state, where those that got their books before the contraction get to enjoy their endless bloat and powerful layered rules, and all Chaos players get to suck gak post-contraction books get watered down 'simplified' rules.

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

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




I don't think they can adapt things that quickly even if they wanted to. Historically, GW doesn't have a history of being able to right a capsizing ship mid-edition, and I haven't seen anything to suggest they've learned how to do it recently. And the basic problem is more bloat and collapsing under its own weight than any specific codex, we have three problem codexes now, and three's a pattern; the problem isn't just that they got DE, Ad Mech and Ork buggies wrong from a balance perspective, the problem is with basic design choices piling up into a mess they can't prevent from spawning these balance abominations.

My suspicion is the rest of the edition is already written (and ruined). 10th will probably be a full reset though, and everyone will cheer about how great it is that the game's getting reset and the layered rules are being taken out, and the cycle will begin again.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/14 05:31:44


 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Historically, GW doesn't have a history of being able to right a capsizing ship mid-edition...
Oh the other hand, they are quite adept at capsising an edition mid-edition.

But to be more serious and not go for the ever-so-obvious-and-low-hanging-fruit, I was more referencing the way GW balances rules... sorry, the way GW "balances" rules ie. via direct applications of force to a large metaphorical pendulum.

In other words, if they were to implement this 'contraction' you speak of, it would be done with great gusto and very little thought of any long term ramifications beyond "We have to fix what we have by doing the opposite of what we're doing now!". Changing metaphors, think of this contraction as someone jumping off a very long bungee cord. It's fast, it's furious, it's exciting, there's tons of momentum, and you've got ages to experience it before the inevitable snap back up. It's that snap back that hurts the players, as we get to see all the things their attempt at 'balance' has broken.



This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/10/14 05:52:02


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

 
   
Made in es
[DCM]
Secret Inquisitorial Eldar Xenexecutor






your mind

Such contraction, capsizing mid-edition, the weightless 'whee!' and then bungee jumping snap back, all of these images point to "peak" 40K. Interesting discussion, this...

   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






 H.B.M.C. wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
Historically, GW doesn't have a history of being able to right a capsizing ship mid-edition...
Oh the other hand, they are quite adept at capsising an edition mid-edition.

Oh 7th ed. . .

Not so much a capsizing as an incredible downward spiral into the abyss. 7th intro was ok besides the overcosted set of three books packaged as one. Then came the escalation of formation rules. Then the crazy additional psychic disciplines where you could move whole sections of terrain, with models in them, across the table. Holy hell.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Shas'ui with Bonding Knife






I think the closest to peak 40k I've played was back when I played in New Jersey, because the store I played at was part way up a hill.

After that everywhere else I've played at the stores were built on considerably flat or flattened terrain so I don't think those games would've counted as peak 40k.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/14 19:52:04


bonbaonbardlements

Looking forward to a new Tau Codex just so I can go back to carrying around 1 damn book instead of three with a mess of stapled FAQ and errata printouts for each of them. 
   
Made in us
Exalted Beastlord




 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The problem with these "contractions" - good way of putting it, BTW - is that GW will apply it to all future Codices without considering how it should affect existing ones.

This will lead to a pre- and post-contraction state, where those that got their books before the contraction get to enjoy their endless bloat and powerful layered rules, and all Chaos players get to suck gak post-contraction books get watered down 'simplified' rules.


Contractions, eh?

'And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Nottingham to be born?'

Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in ca
Been Around the Block




Tennessee

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
Historically, GW doesn't have a history of being able to right a capsizing ship mid-edition...
Oh the other hand, they are quite adept at capsising an edition mid-edition.

But to be more serious and not go for the ever-so-obvious-and-low-hanging-fruit, I was more referencing the way GW balances rules... sorry, the way GW "balances" rules ie. via direct applications of force to a large metaphorical pendulum.

In other words, if they were to implement this 'contraction' you speak of, it would be done with great gusto and very little thought of any long term ramifications beyond "We have to fix what we have by doing the opposite of what we're doing now!". Changing metaphors, think of this contraction as someone jumping off a very long bungee cord. It's fast, it's furious, it's exciting, there's tons of momentum, and you've got ages to experience it before the inevitable snap back up. It's that snap back that hurts the players, as we get to see all the things their attempt at 'balance' has broken.


Yes, thank you. I don't believe this is about the playability or balance of a particular core ruleset but rather how assiduously (and strategically) are they supporting it with coherent and "balanced" supplements. We tend to remember 5th edition because codexes were slowly doled out but relatively regular and not too swingy (except GK). The edition was allowed to breath. We should also remember, even after such an awful codex release as CSM, we would have to move on from them fairly quickly. There was no choice. You simply were not going to play your favorite army at least competitively. Universally, we did not like how slowly codexes were released and how helpless we felt with our favorite armies. 6th and 7th attempted to change that but the "snap back" was too much. It capsized mid-edition (well, second half of 7th anyway). 9th is trying to do too much. There's larger sways and deeper alterations on how an army alters core rules. Things are way too swingy.

I think it may be helpful to consider 8th and 9th edition one evolving edition. Dare I say, they need not be so heavy-handed (except with CSM ). There's still hope and there's also a pandemic to fully recover from.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/10/17 06:07:42


"You're not the best but you're the best we've got."

 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





2nd edition was best.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





 themonk wrote:
We tend to remember 5th edition because codexes were slowly doled out but relatively regular and not too swingy (except GK). The edition was allowed to breath. We should also remember, even after such an awful codex release as CSM, we would have to move on from them fairly quickly. There was no choice. You simply were not going to play your favorite army at least competitively.
The thing I remember about 5th is how much of a lottery the books were. CSM 4e were perfectly playable at the start of 5th against the new SM and all of the prior releases, but then the rest of the edition was a bit of a rollercoaster.

Wolves and guard were probably the furthest behind the curve and if GW had a little more oversight on their 5e releases then the rest of the edition could have gone quite differently.
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut



Bamberg / Erlangen

A.T. wrote:
Wolves and guard were probably the furthest behind the curve and if GW had a little more oversight on their 5e releases then the rest of the edition could have gone quite differently.
Disagree. Leafblower and LongFang spam was as potent as other armies. The only actual outlier with a 5th edition book were Grey Knights. And they were ahead of everyone else for alot of different reasons.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/18 10:40:53


Imperial Guard Space Marines
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





a_typical_hero wrote:
A.T. wrote:
Wolves and guard were probably the furthest behind the curve and if GW had a little more oversight on their 5e releases then the rest of the edition could have gone quite differently.
Disagree. Leafblower and LongFang spam was as potent as other armies.
Wolves and guard at the start of the edition (that is to say 3e guard and wolves) were behind the curve.

While 5e guard and wolves were a clear step ahead of anything else in terms of power. They were the books that needed the updates but they pushed the boat out so far that everyone else was playing catch-up for the rest of the edition.
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut



Bamberg / Erlangen

I see. I got you wrong. My bad!

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