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.

Same time Genestealer Cults came back. A bit before, actually. In 7th.

OP wrote:How do you feel about the State of 40k?

I just read AoS' new "Reinforcement Point" rules, so I'd like to revise my answer to the original question posed by this thread:

I feel great about the current state of 40k because feth that rule!!! I hope it never makes its way into 40k.

ClockworkZion wrote:Have you actually read the rules and abilities for White Scars? They have most of that still, and you no longer need certain characters to unlock stuff like an all bike army.

Only things off that list they lost were power lances and mounted vets. Both of which have more to do with the Chapterhouse lawsuit tham 9th ed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and we lost FOC moves for everyone but CSM but that is less important in this edition with how FOC works.

Yes i have and it is a joke compared to what they once were, and character unlocks were a 5th ed thing the WS themed army i listed is in index astartes 1 for 3rd edition

On that point i am waiting to see this all bike primaris army where the 10 man strong bike units are troops choices and not fast attack/outrider detachments The WS lists i have seen in 9th are running things the WS would never field in the lore because they have to in 9th to make them viable.

There in lies the big rub, previously the thematic lore based army lists both fell in line with how the army was supposed to operate and also was viable.

Galas wrote:.

And I'll agree with what he said. 9th codices play MUCH more like the fluff of each faction and book.

Tell that to any chaos player who ever had a 3.5 codex or a black templar player with a 4th edition codex, or certain eldar craftworld armies in those editions etc....

The mechanics of 9th and the lack of the single unified FOC are only part of the problem but they add to the generic nature of the "fluff" rules in 9th edition. that mostly focuses on buffs and debuffs to hit or damage instead of things these armies would naturally do in lore.

 aphyon wrote:
On that point i am waiting to see this all bike primaris army where the 10 man strong bike units are troops choices and not fast attack/outrider detachments

Put the goal post down. Your complaint was a lack of all bike armies. I pointed out that you can still have them. You don't get to then go "but I need them as troops too!"

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 aphyon wrote:
On that point i am waiting to see this all bike primaris army where the 10 man strong bike units are troops choices and not fast attack/outrider detachments

Put the goal post down. Your complaint was a lack of all bike armies. I pointed out that you can still have them. You don't get to then go "but I need them as troops too!"

Okay, then. Just to make your life slightly harder, can I go "I'd really like to see huge White Scars bike wads with native Obsec" since it's not my 'goalpost' that was 'moved?'

 CEO Kasen wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 aphyon wrote:
On that point i am waiting to see this all bike primaris army where the 10 man strong bike units are troops choices and not fast attack/outrider detachments

Put the goal post down. Your complaint was a lack of all bike armies. I pointed out that you can still have them. You don't get to then go "but I need them as troops too!"

Okay, then. Just to make your life slightly harder, can I go "I'd really like to see huge White Scars bike wads with native Obsec" since it's not my 'goalpost' that was 'moved?'

You can have that. Go play 5th edition.

Seriously, I'm just going to start reading this kind of stuff off in the dumbest owo sounding voice I can imagine because it's all "oh I'm totally owning you with facts and logic!" while ignoring that there are only two units in the whole game who turn into troops in specific situations (Berserkers and Noise Marines). Crying that you can't make Obsec White Scars anymore is just looking for an excuse to be mad about something.

Isn't White Scars being all bikes all the time a Flanderisation of the White Scars?

I mean, they're a Codex Chapter, right?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Isn't White Scars being all bikes all the time a Flanderisation of the White Scars?

I mean, they're a Codex Chapter, right?

Codex chapter specializing in hit and run tactics and savaging the enemy tribes. Known for mechanized and bike tactics (and rarely using Dreadnoughts). People just love that flanderized version of them only on bikes.

PenitentJake wrote:
Did we even have Deathwatch rules before 8th?

3rd Edition Chapter Approved (White Dwarf list for DW Kill Teams, same as most SM Chapters got), 6th Edition Inquisition Codex, 7th Edition Deathwatch Codex



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I mean, they're a Codex Chapter, right?

same as Dark Angels and Blood Angels, but the first have a "secret" and the 2nd a "defect", so WS fit into the "Codex Chapter but different enough for not being just White Ultra Marines although UM should be able to do exactly the same on the table according to fluff"

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Seriously, I'm just going to start reading this kind of stuff off in the dumbest owo sounding voice I can imagine because it's all "oh I'm totally owning you with facts and logic!" while ignoring that there are only two units in the whole game who turn into troops in specific situations (Berserkers and Noise Marines). Crying that you can't make Obsec White Scars anymore is just looking for an excuse to be mad about something.

First, screw you, because I do an adorable OwO voice.

Second, you mistake my intentions - I was being a dick to you mostly because I kind of hate 'moving goalposts' as a substitute for an argument. Not every minor problem with it has to be the reason to dislike 9th when there are so many much more foundational reasons to do so.

 CEO Kasen wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Seriously, I'm just going to start reading this kind of stuff off in the dumbest owo sounding voice I can imagine because it's all "oh I'm totally owning you with facts and logic!" while ignoring that there are only two units in the whole game who turn into troops in specific situations (Berserkers and Noise Marines). Crying that you can't make Obsec White Scars anymore is just looking for an excuse to be mad about something.

First, screw you, because I do an adorable OwO voice.

Second, you mistake my intentions - I was being a dick to you mostly because I kind of hate 'moving goalposts' as a substitute for an argument. Not every minor problem with it has to be the reason to dislike 9th when there are so many much more foundational reasons to do so.

It was completely a moving goal post argument though. When you go "well sure I can have an all bike army, but it doesn't count because I can't have an all bike obsec army" that's not a rebuttal to the point, it's shifting the goal post to force me or someone else to meet new criteria in order to prove a point. Besides, how do you objective secure a point on a bike anyways? Do donuts around it?

 ClockworkZion wrote:

You can have that. Go play 5th edition.

Seriously, I'm just going to start reading this kind of stuff off in the dumbest owo sounding voice I can imagine because it's all "oh I'm totally owning you with facts and logic!" while ignoring that there are only two units in the whole game who turn into troops in specific situations (Berserkers and Noise Marines). Crying that you can't make Obsec White Scars anymore is just looking for an excuse to be mad about something.

If that is the case, then why shouldn't people who want to play a WS army not want to WS bikers be troops. DW can take 5 man outridder units that are troops, just by virtue of how their squads can be set up.

I understand something not being or not suppose to be a thing, if there are no examples in it , in the entire game. But both historically and rules wise now, such things can happen. And it is really not that hard to do either. Just put something like this under the starting section of the WS book "If the warlord in a White Scar detachment is mounted on a bike or an outrider bike, outridder and bikers in this detachment can be taken in the troop slot":

GW has moved away from shuffling codexes around for balance. You may not like it but your bikers already get so many buffs that taking an Outrider of bikes is still very good even if they don't have Obsec. We're really getting into "first world problems" levels of complaining when you start griping that your bike Marines don't get obsec.

Why can't they be better if in a WS army? DA blade guard are better, for no extra points I think, just by virtue of being in a DA army.

Same way a SW player can ask why if his wolf priests are both chaplains and apothecaries, can't they take the Apothecary upgrade for them.

And it is not a first problem, if someone wants to play a WS army made with bikers. Sure WS are one of the best marine armies, but they are build around swarms of infantry AND no transports, because marine transports are bad. Which makes WS not really play like WS.

If I play the GK brother hood that deploys the most termintor armours, and has both its Grandmaster and 20 member deployed in guardian suits. Then if for some reason an army made out of serivitors and power armoured GK is good, does not help me enjoy the game better.

DE players like to play with their fast moving stuff, DA and DG players got the stuff they like to use in their books, why shouldn't WS player that like bikes get what they like? And that is before stupid limitations on outridders, just because GW only has the ETB kit right now, so outside of DW you can take bigger squads then 3 or give them any upgrades, when at the same time the primaris chaplain on an outrider bike exists, meaning there are no lore problems with the sgt of a outrider unit having a power fist or a neo volkite pistol, or have 3+ members in the squad, like lets say blade guard or eradictors, whose only difference is that they have a regular box alongside an ETB option.

Karol wrote:
Why can't they be better if in a WS army? DA blade guard are better, for no extra points I think, just by virtue of being in a DA army.

Same way a SW player can ask why if his wolf priests are both chaplains and apothecaries, can't they take the Apothecary upgrade for them.

Because WS aren't only about bikes and such a reductive take on the faction ignores how it's rules synergize with the other units at its disposal?

Or because we don't need to give every friggin rule to every friggin unit just because that's how it used to work.

If there is enough people who want it, then why shouldn't BA be the jump pack faction and the WS the biker faction.

No one seems to have a problem with 1ksons or GK being the magic marines. Or DA having their DW and RW. eldar have a faction or sub faction, what ever one wants to call it, that litterally takes the model from other eldar factions and gives them extra rules.

Because they want the rules to reflect the fluff*. Blood Angels aren't the "Jump Pack Chapter" any more than White Scars aren't the "Bike Chapter". Like it or lump it, they're both Codex Chapters. They have variations, but they're not like the Wolves, who are decidedly not a Codex Chapter.

Apropos...

Karol wrote:
Same way a SW player can ask why if his wolf priests are both chaplains and apothecaries, can't they take the Apothecary upgrade for them.

Well that one is easy to answer: GW wanted to give all Marines a singular central list, but forgot that the Woofs are the least like regular Marines of all the non-Grey Knight loyalist Chapters. Unlike Blood Angels or Dark Angels, who are just a little bit different, Space Wolves are completely different with mainly vehicles being their only parallels. But, off they went, trying to make a square peg fit a round hole. And their method of approach was the same way they approach changes to the rules - with a sledgehammer. End result, the weird nonsense you mentioned (and beyond).

*Before you laugh, always remember that GW's concepts are fantastic. It's their implementation that always leaves us shaking our heads in abject disbelief.

indeed. GW is the salvation of GW whilest also being the biggest enemy of GW.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Because they want the rules to reflect the fluff*. Blood Angels aren't the "Jump Pack Chapter" any more than White Scars aren't the "Bike Chapter". Like it or lump it, they're both Codex Chapters. They have variations, but they're not like the Wolves, who are decidedly not a Codex Chapter.

Yet at the same time, it does not explain why something like better bladeguard exists for DA. Plus lore has zero to do with how factions function or what rules they have on the tablet top. If they did, then I want my 600 combat servitors being teleported in on to enemy lines pre game in melee range or Guardian Suits termintor power armour or the 4 hour long non stop lance strike performed before planet drop guided by warp seers and loaded warheads that targets the opponents soul as much as his body. Or failing that the blessed ammo every GK has in his bolter, to be on without the use of a stratagem.

In game WS seem to be the biker faction, so this makes them the biker faction. Giving people options to game play the system is more important then some lore boundry of tactical companies don't have that many RAS units. And it is even a weaker argument when the boundry exists only, so GW could force people to buy different models and not play with the army they want.

ClockworkZion wrote:

Karol wrote:
Why can't they be better if in a WS army? DA blade guard are better, for no extra points I think, just by virtue of being in a DA army.

Same way a SW player can ask why if his wolf priests are both chaplains and apothecaries, can't they take the Apothecary upgrade for them.

Because WS aren't only about bikes and such a reductive take on the faction ignores how it's rules synergize with the other units at its disposal?

Or because we don't need to give every friggin rule to every friggin unit just because that's how it used to work.

Talk about moving the goalposts they are not the bike factions. they are the MOUNTED faction, the FAST faction their fighting style is literally based on mongol cavalry.

They want all their units mounted in transports they don't want to go slow, they HATE dreadnoughts. they may be "codex compliant" about as much as the dark angels are. enough to get by while keeping their preferred style of combat. could they defend a bastion? of course. will they? probably not. during the siege of Terra they left Dorn up on the battlements and took the battle to the enemy via bikes, speeders, jump packs and battle brothers in rhinos and predators.

They have access to all the same units as any other codex compliant chapter they just choose to use them differently(or not at all).

In game WS seem to be the biker faction, so this makes them the biker faction

Slight caveat Karol. the ravenwing is a bike themed army that focuses on shooting. the white scars have more of a close combat tactical focus in the lore when it comes to their bike forces.

I'm wondering if there will be a round two of Marine supplements.

If GW have plans for this to be a longer edition- and given the amount of attention to ways to play, there's a chance- a second round of SM supplements AFTER all the dexes are out, with a few chapter specific primaris models isn't a terrible idea. Better than stuff people would complain is DLC, better than a marine 2.0 dex.

After those supplement, another campaign cycle; all the factions which received many models in the first wave would get a single kit; all the factions which received a single model in the first wave could get a few kits in the second. If the campaign books are kept "Nice to Have" instead of "Need to Have", this cycle could even be repeated a third time. Technically, it could go on indefinitely, but that's a pipe dream.

Also, we got a vs box Q1, and GK vs. Ksons was supposed to be Q2; I'm curious to see whether there will be another in Q3 and another in Q4. In the second campaign cycle, 8 new factions get package deals via VS boxes.

You could also switch up the contents of CP boxes every Campaign Cycle. There are ways to make a persistent edition equally profitable as edition churn. It's one of the things I had about the Covid/ Brexit/ Shipping crisis tripple whammy; without it, I think the pattern and the plan would be a lot clearer to more people.

And it would let some of the SM players who feel their chapters need attention to get it.

Karol wrote:
Plus lore has zero to do with how factions function or what rules they have on the tablet top.

GW makes models, writes the lore about those models and then writes rules to match the models and lore, so it does matter, even if you can find edge cases that don't make sense.

Negative.

The game has lost its heart & soul.

The game has been overrun by tourney-hammer design which hinders experimentation and stifles creativity for an unachievable ideology called "balance".

The mission design is downright pathetic. They're so bland. There's no creativity behind them. It's a broken record repeating the same game over and over and over.

Right, not like the creative mission design from fourth thru seventh where the mission design was:

1) 4 objectives around the board, whoever holds more at the end of the game wins

2) 1 objective in each DZ, whoever holds more at the end of the game wins

3) whoever kills more units at the end of the game wins

 the_scotsman wrote:
Right, not like the creative mission design from fourth thru seventh where the mission design was:

1) 4 objectives around the board, whoever holds more at the end of the game wins

2) 1 objective in each DZ, whoever holds more at the end of the game wins

3) whoever kills more units at the end of the game wins

Yes but you see, at least any deployment zone could be used with any mission! And you would, you would roll to see which deployment type you used (and if you ever rolled the diagonal one you'd re-roll, until you got either short or long)

Rihgu wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:
Right, not like the creative mission design from fourth thru seventh where the mission design was:

1) 4 objectives around the board, whoever holds more at the end of the game wins

2) 1 objective in each DZ, whoever holds more at the end of the game wins

3) whoever kills more units at the end of the game wins

Yes but you see, at least any deployment zone could be used with any mission! And you would, you would roll to see which deployment type you used (and if you ever rolled the diagonal one you'd re-roll, until you got either short or long)

Every day I become more convinced that the nostalgia crowd is just nostalgic for playing in a group that would aim their creativity at designing missions, where the goal was to create as close and even a battle as possible, and now they play the game by making lists where the goal is the most powerful list possible and they do nothing to alter any of the rules, have bad games and get mad.

 oni wrote:
Negative.

The game has lost its heart & soul.

The game has been overrun by tourney-hammer design which hinders experimentation and stifles creativity for an unachievable ideology called "balance".

The mission design is downright pathetic. They're so bland. There's no creativity behind them. It's a broken record repeating the same game over and over and over.

This feels like the most overt "it changed so it sucks" take I've seen.

The biggest change to missions was making them less kill focused which arguably fits the lore better since territory control, resource gain/denial, and resource recovery are the reason 40k has so many ground wars instead of just glassing the enemy from orbit.

And anything you play over and over again is going to feel repetetive. That's how repetition works.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 oni wrote:
Negative.

The game has lost its heart & soul.

The game has been overrun by tourney-hammer design which hinders experimentation and stifles creativity for an unachievable ideology called "balance".

The mission design is downright pathetic. They're so bland. There's no creativity behind them. It's a broken record repeating the same game over and over and over.

This feels like the most overt "it changed so it sucks" take I've seen.

The biggest change to missions was making them less kill focused which arguably fits the lore better since territory control, resource gain/denial, and resource recovery are the reason 40k has so many ground wars instead of just glassing the enemy from orbit.

And anything you play over and over again is going to feel repetetive. That's how repetition works.

I don't think that's necessarily fair. Older editions did have a lot more "tactical depth" (for 40k anyway, simulation fans need not @me) than the current edition, and 8th and 9th DO have a lot of CCG style in-game power ups and combos that feel a bit "arcade-like" for lack of a better term that I can see not being appealing to some. Additionally, the missions for 9th are based on actual tournament style systems, so if you don't like that kind of play, I can see not feeling positive towards the edition. Sure, at that point it's on you to work out what style to play instead, and the tools are there for that, but I don't see that post as being as bad as you feel it was.

And the tourney-hammer crowd will continue to do what it do... keep chasing the balance dragon.

No fear... they'll catch it eventually.

 the_scotsman wrote:

Every day I become more convinced that the nostalgia crowd is just nostalgic for playing in a group that would aim their creativity at designing missions, where the goal was to create as close and even a battle as possible, and now they play the game by making lists where the goal is the most powerful list possible and they do nothing to alter any of the rules, have bad games and get mad.

this is one reason why I still see 5th as the best, it was the last Edition were a community made environment worked well, our own FAQ/Errata that was accepted by all Clubs/Stores/Event around, Missions/Scenarios and Victory points and restrictions that cut down stuff that was overpowered (eg something like the previous Iron Hands) and no one had a problem with that

already with 6th and 7th people were less open to changes because the new formations are "cool & fluffy" so cannot be cut, or allowing everyone to have AA weapons because Flyers are too weak anyway.

and with 8th we got the "GW cares" and now we pay for the balance changes that were once "open source" and should not be needed in the first place


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 oni wrote:
And the tourney-hammer crowd will continue to do what it do... keep chasing the balance dragon.

the tourney crowed does not care about balance, they chase the meta and just play the list/faction that is the flavor of the month to win the events

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 oni wrote:
Negative.

The game has lost its heart & soul.

The game has been overrun by tourney-hammer design which hinders experimentation and stifles creativity for an unachievable ideology called "balance".

The mission design is downright pathetic. They're so bland. There's no creativity behind them. It's a broken record repeating the same game over and over and over.

This feels like the most overt "it changed so it sucks" take I've seen.

The biggest change to missions was making them less kill focused which arguably fits the lore better since territory control, resource gain/denial, and resource recovery are the reason 40k has so many ground wars instead of just glassing the enemy from orbit.

And anything you play over and over again is going to feel repetetive. That's how repetition works.

Nah. I like the 9th edition core rules. And I applaud the changes to detachments and command points - I think they really nailed it.

I hate the missions. They're uninspired and one dimensional. And the missions are the heart & soul of the game because they dictate how to play.