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.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Tbh I've never been more inclined to start my own company aimed at making an alternative ruleset than now.

If you have the means I thnk you should. I don't do it expecting massive revenue, I do it to make a game I enjoy - but I think the more commercial products available the better.

Toofast wrote:
I have quit and taken long breaks twice specifically because of the state of the game. When 7th got really bad, all of a sudden you had WMH and Xwing tournaments getting 30+ players and nobody playing 40k. It's disingenuous to pretend that nobody quits because of the state of the game. There's a local group meeting up to play Infinity for the first time since the pandemic started, again specifically because of the state of 40k.

Of course but it's also disingenuous to pretend that everybody quits because the state of the game. Or even the majority. There are several main factors that cause people to leave 40k: personal issues, change of interests, family, work, school, personal finances, etc...

So with the release of the "balance" dataslate, does anyone who said the meta doesn't impact them in anyway want to perhaps revise their comments?

Not really.

 Blackie wrote:

Of course but it's also disingenuous to pretend that everybody quits because the state of the game. Or even the majority. There are several main factors that cause people to leave 40k: personal issues, change of interests, family, work, school, personal finances, etc...

I think the problem is also people leave for different game reasons.

At least in my experience WMH and X-wing took off because of the excesses of 5th (I know, Dakka heresy) and then 6th/7th.

People seemingly didn't want more verisimilitude, or a "war" game. They wanted a game with tight rules that could conclude in about an hour. Combos, gotchas, MTG in mini form describes these games reasonably well. If you got smashed quickly you could just play again with a few different peices. This compared with 40k's 3 hour slog to reach a highly probable conclusion based on faction (or who went first) imbalance. But hey, maybe you could deep strike and shoot a tank in the side to demonstrate you were a master of strategy.

The endless rules on rules on rules is a bigger problem imo than "noooo, your lasguns can't do a few wounds to my super mega tank". A clean up in 10th seems clearly desirable but not sure its going to happen.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
So with the release of the "balance" dataslate, does anyone who said the meta doesn't impact them in anyway want to perhaps revise their comments?

Me personally? I won't touch my Space Wolves' lists and replace the lone Squigbuggy I was fielding with another, more performing, buggy in the orks lists I play.

Probably games againts Deathguard, Space Marines and Adepta Sororitas are going to be more challenging. That's it.

One of the problems GW will face if they attempt to simplifying codexes is that in general people don't react well to things being taken away. It's seen as a slide backwards.

They got away with a cleaner slate at 3rd and 8th edition since those were completely new rulesets. I can't imagine 10th pulling back on rule bloat unless they likewise take a clean slate approach. But given the 8th Ed rule base isn't all that old, I have a hard time imagining that.

A partial rules overhaul in 10th might go a ways towards separating it from 9th. Even though the issues with 9th seem to be with poor codex balancing, I feel like the bad rap is being heaped on "9th edition" rather than 9th edition codices, but I'm prepared to be wrong on that as I don't go play at a LGS

DeadliestIdiot wrote:
A partial rules overhaul in 10th might go a ways towards separating it from 9th. Even though the issues with 9th seem to be with poor codex balancing, I feel like the bad rap is being heaped on "9th edition" rather than 9th edition codices, but I'm prepared to be wrong on that as I don't go play at a LGS

The bad rep of 9th may seem to be about codex balancing, but in reality it is about a core system that has too little capacity to fit all the factions of 40k in with meaningful differences. That is why all those "bespoke rules" are just bland variations of the same old re-rolls/modifiers/invulns/fnps, that is why GW has to put layers upon layers of core rules breaking special faction rules etc. This is all around poor system that can't handle what it is expected from it, with even worse implementation, and on top of that it has awful mission structure and disastrous balance issues.

It is quite baffling really, since GW has two good systems written down already - LOTRBG and Apocalypse. They just need to retrofit the lost flavour back into the Apocalypse and it has way more potential for being a good game than 8th ed core rules.

People would lose their minds if they made apocalypse the basis of the ruleset. Not about the perceived size of the game (just make it 2000 or whatever) but the mechanics themselves.

Though I would certainly look at playing again.