Switch Theme:

40k is at its worse point since 7th edition.  [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 ie
Ruthless Rafkin





 Gert wrote:
I really feel like people just need to have conversations with their regular opponents more often. A solid 60% of problems I see could be solved by a 5 minute conversation with your opponent to ask them to tone down their list.


I used to make this argument during 8th but I've come to the realisation that if the game was good you should't NEED to ask people to tone down lists. In any of the other games I play I've never had to ask an opponent to play a certain way for us both to enjoy the game and I don't see why 40k should get a pass in that regard.


 
   
Made in pl
Regular Dakkanaut




Here's a thing, WH40K has never been a particularly good game We may have had lower expectations in the past due to the lack of other, well-designed games to compare it to.
   
Made in gb
Lit By the Flames of Prospero






Spoiler:
 Sim-Life wrote:

I used to make this argument during 8th but I've come to the realisation that if the game was good you should't NEED to ask people to tone down lists. In any of the other games I play I've never had to ask an opponent to play a certain way for us both to enjoy the game and I don't see why 40k should get a pass in that regard.

Its not the fault of the game if someone is a competitive person or that they have the money to get loads of stuff which results in them having a greater pool of units to choose from. I was very restricted in my Warhammer purchases compared to my friends when I was a young un' so while they'd reached a Company of Space Marines or Cadre of T'au by 4 months into the hobby' I was still on the Black Reach Orks with a Trukk and a scrapped Rhino. When I was able to buy more stuff it didn't really matter because while I would make a list usually on the day of a game, the competitive players were making 10 lists a month to test and rework to get the best possible chance of winning.
It took me a really long time and a lot of misery to work up the courage to ask my friends to let me have a chance at winning for once and I really hated that I had to do that at all. Its not GW's fault I was wary of overspending nor is it GW's fault some of these guys were super competitive. Certain aspects of the hobby and game certainly didn't improve the situation but it wasn't the fault of 40k alone.
I've had similar situations in BFG, AoS, Bolt Action, heck even just video games like Halo Wars or Supreme Commander. There's no legislating for people and 8th/9th so far haven't been a serious problem for me so far.
   
Made in us
Grumpy Longbeard




washington state USA

Moreover, what 10-13 year old (average start age for Warhammer in my experience) or indeed their parents are going to buy a 3d printer? My friend who has no commitments can afford to sit around and print parts or models all day, the rest of our group doesn't have that luxury.


1. not my experience at all, i am at the FLGS every saturday for 12+ hours since i took over running late night gaming in 2008 and the average age of people starting 40K for the first time is between 20-30
No young children get into the hobby unless they have a parent that gets them into it because they already play. the hobby is just to expensive if you are buying from GW, in fact they have priced many long time adult players out of the game.
2. 3d printing is incredibly affordable as well as convenient. you can let the printer run while you are off at work, asleep or doing anything else around the house then presto you have your minis right there to assemble and paint without having to go anywhere to get them. you are also not limited to GW designs there are loads of designers that make STL files for troops or vehicles and such they are completely unique.



GAMES-DUST1947/infinity/B5 wars/epic 40K/5th ed 40K/victory at sea/warmachine/battle tactics/monpoc/battletech/battlefleet gothic/castles in the sky,/heavy gear 
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




Well a game is just a set of rules. A set of rules are by their nature inanimate, so can't be fault of anything. But the rule designers and rule writers are very much at fault, because they are the ones that create the systems.

When the ways to play GW games and have fun come down to either owning multiple armies for multiple games or being able to buy and rebuy, new armies, in a span of under 4 months. Then there is, in my opinion a problem there. And it shows in the players retention GW games have. No table top game is as popular as w40k, at the same time most players don't last past one edition, often not even that.

The rest like upscaling the game, which I only know from stories, or price uping all the time are just secondary things.

I wonder if one day one of two things happen. The recasting becomes so wide spread , the way it is here, that GW will cave in or games like w40k run out of new players , and what is left is a cadre of 40+year old veterans. I seen this happen in sports. Right now there are practically no new judo or karate rankers under 14 year old. But there is a ton of trainers and ex contenders in their 40s or late 30s. And while it is not a problem when stuff is sesonally popular, it becomes a real problem when something becomes unpopular for multiplpe years. Which I think happened to w40k.


If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in gb
Ship's Officer





Bristol (UK)

I don't think 3D printing is that much of a threat right now.
It's definitely hurting them, but 3d printing is still fairly involved with having to clean and wash the parts and stuff, many describe it as a hobby in it's own right.

I also think GW has done an excellent job of cultivating a very insular culture for Warhammer. Warhammer is the hobby and anything outside of that is verbotten!
It seems they're only doubling down on that.
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




 aphyon wrote:


1. not my experience at all, i am at the FLGS every saturday for 12+ hours since i took over running late night gaming in 2008 and the average age of people starting 40K for the first time is between 20-30
No young children get into the hobby unless they have a parent that gets them into it because they already play. the hobby is just to expensive if you are buying from GW, in fact they have priced many long time adult players out of the game.
2. 3d printing is incredibly affordable as well as convenient. you can let the printer run while you are off at work, asleep or doing anything else around the house then presto you have your minis right there to assemble and paint without having to go anywhere to get them. you are also not limited to GW designs there are loads of designers that make STL files for troops or vehicles and such they are completely unique.


I started at 13, alongside almost 20 other people, at the very start of 8th ed. Aside for me and 2 other people no one from the group that started plays anymore. 9th through a mix of covid and rules shifts, made it so that the store, while it was open, consisted mostly of guys in their late 20s and mid 30s. In fact there are probably more 50+ year olds at the store then teens. The only lower demographic is women, and even that not by much. Most people in their early teens when they hear that an army costs upwards of 700$ , requires hours of painting, and the rules balances is sometimes wonky, will just buy something safer. Like a good phone or a playstation, or an Xbox if they live in a really large city.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





The game is totally over complicated and what I would like to know from the 40K veterans is: is there any evidence that the changing of the rules and game mechanics has brought more players to the game.

Because I expect that gamer numbers go up through marketing etc

The game is soooooo different to when I played it in 2nd Ed, which felt more like it it was designed for fun. Now it feels like it’s designed for a tournament community.

The use of CP and strategems in game to get re rolls and buff feels like it’s moved half way towards being a card game instead of a strategic table top war game.

   
Made in ie
Ruthless Rafkin





 Gert wrote:
Spoiler:
 Sim-Life wrote:

I used to make this argument during 8th but I've come to the realisation that if the game was good you should't NEED to ask people to tone down lists. In any of the other games I play I've never had to ask an opponent to play a certain way for us both to enjoy the game and I don't see why 40k should get a pass in that regard.

Its not the fault of the game if someone is a competitive person or that they have the money to get loads of stuff which results in them having a greater pool of units to choose from.


Well, yes, it is. If two people take a 500/1000/2000/whatever pts list a good game will present opportunities for both to win somehow regardless of the content of their armies. Most games are able to do this. Regardless of the "pool" of units most armies should be roughly the same level in terms of ability to win regardless of what units are taken, either by the objectives of the game or by restrictions to army choices or both.


 
   
Made in de
Ladies Love the Vibro-Cannon Operator






Hamburg

Well, OP has a point: power creep, rule complexity, and price.
But that's the same with each new edition.

For me card-drawing in the 8th ed. was an issue introducing too much randomness into the game.
I'm happy its gone.

Former moderator 40kOnline

Lanchester's square law - please obey in list building!

Illumini: "And thank you for not finishing your post with a "" I'm sorry, but after 7200 's that has to be the most annoying sign-off ever."

Armies: Eldar, Necrons, Blood Angels, Grey Knights; World Eaters (30k); Bloodbound; Cryx, Circle, Cyriss 
   
Made in ch
Warped Arch Heretic of Chaos





 Gert wrote:

Its not the fault of the game if someone is a competitive person or that they have the money to get loads of stuff which results in them having a greater pool of units to choose from. I was very restricted in my Warhammer purchases compared to my friends when I was a young un' so while they'd reached a Company of Space Marines or Cadre of T'au by 4 months into the hobby' I was still on the Black Reach Orks with a Trukk and a scrapped Rhino. When I was able to buy more stuff it didn't really matter because while I would make a list usually on the day of a game, the competitive players were making 10 lists a month to test and rework to get the best possible chance of winning.
It took me a really long time and a lot of misery to work up the courage to ask my friends to let me have a chance at winning for once and I really hated that I had to do that at all. Its not GW's fault I was wary of overspending nor is it GW's fault some of these guys were super competitive. Certain aspects of the hobby and game certainly didn't improve the situation but it wasn't the fault of 40k alone.
I've had similar situations in BFG, AoS, Bolt Action, heck even just video games like Halo Wars or Supreme Commander. There's no legislating for people and 8th/9th so far haven't been a serious problem for me so far.


9th ? Not a problem?
Considering that 8th dexes baseline just suck in most cases in 9th? Even amongst a closeknitt group which has a common view upon the balance, right now some people more or less don't want to play right now against 9th dexes or even with their 9th dexes, understandably so.

Nevermind that GW WILLINGLY has adopted a DLC style monetisation policy and monetises balance patches too boot.

I am sorry, players might be part of the problem, but lets not pretend that the lionsshare of responsibiltiy doesn't lie with GW.



This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/07/26 08:47:10


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

In the 41st millennium there is only overpriced hamberders.

 
   
Made in gb
Frenzied Berserker Terminator




mrFickle wrote:
The game is totally over complicated and what I would like to know from the 40K veterans is: is there any evidence that the changing of the rules and game mechanics has brought more players to the game.

Because I expect that gamer numbers go up through marketing etc

The game is soooooo different to when I played it in 2nd Ed, which felt more like it it was designed for fun. Now it feels like it’s designed for a tournament community.

The use of CP and strategems in game to get re rolls and buff feels like it’s moved half way towards being a card game instead of a strategic table top war game.



The demographic has changed. The rise of the US ITC basically led to the game being where we are.

The American scene has a large vocal community of play to win type tournament players. If it's not capable of being a sport it's not worth sort of mindset.

Given how much the online presence on YouTube and podcasts grew and became ITC centric through this time span, it resulted in it becoming the most commonly talked about and portrayed way to play the game and conversely what the vocal player base wanted.

Roll on 9th ed and GW partner and hire with people from the US tourney scene to steer the game that way.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





Dudeface wrote:
mrFickle wrote:
The game is totally over complicated and what I would like to know from the 40K veterans is: is there any evidence that the changing of the rules and game mechanics has brought more players to the game.

Because I expect that gamer numbers go up through marketing etc

The game is soooooo different to when I played it in 2nd Ed, which felt more like it it was designed for fun. Now it feels like it’s designed for a tournament community.

The use of CP and strategems in game to get re rolls and buff feels like it’s moved half way towards being a card game instead of a strategic table top war game.



The demographic has changed. The rise of the US ITC basically led to the game being where we are.

The American scene has a large vocal community of play to win type tournament players. If it's not capable of being a sport it's not worth sort of mindset.

Given how much the online presence on YouTube and podcasts grew and became ITC centric through this time span, it resulted in it becoming the most commonly talked about and portrayed way to play the game and conversely what the vocal player base wanted.

Roll on 9th ed and GW partner and hire with people from the US tourney scene to steer the game that way.


What does ITC stand for please?
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut






1. not my experience at all, i am at the FLGS every saturday for 12+ hours since i took over running late night gaming in 2008 and the average age of people starting 40K for the first time is between 20-30
No young children get into the hobby unless they have a parent that gets them into it because they already play. the hobby is just to expensive if you are buying from GW, in fact they have priced many long time adult players out of the game.


I agree with this but to say that this is the case for MOST wargames. 40k, WM/H, Malifaux, MCP, Infinity, Moonstone etc. Pretty much all players are adults with jobs and some disposable income and time.

Ask a young person what they would rather spend money on. The current Warhammer Total war season pass for something like £30-50 where they can play all the factions and leaders in glorious HD. Or spend hundreds of £ on models that you have at assemble and paint yourself (which will look naff initially), learn how to play, lug those models to a certain location to play, loose a lot of games in public etc. Its a gross generalisation but most young people will choose the former.

Wargaming is not something open to kids anymore unless they they have a rare mindset and a family with a lot of disposable income. If GW and other companies wanted to get kids into the game then key models and small units wouldn't £60 each.
   
Made in us
Poisonous Tomb Scorpion





Salt donkey wrote:
Yes I do mean what the title says and no it’s not hyperbole. I truly believe 40k atm is worse than it’s been since 7th. Here’s why it beats the runners up of bad times; 2.0 marine winter and Wild West of 8th.

1) OP armies and powercreep: GW clearly still knows how to balance as the sisters codex came out in a good spot. However, all the other recent codex releases have been just flat OP. Orks as a whole are mostly fine, but their warboss on sharksquig, new pysker battlewagon, squig riders, and buggies all are broken units that will make the faction too good. Ad mech and drukhari have both been as bad as marines were at their peak (or at least as bad as marines where sans the 2 week period iron hands where extremely OP). This is indisputable as Dark Eldar still hold a 60+ winrate despite receiving all the nerfs pretty much everyone was asking for in my “Drukhari are OP thread”. Ad-mech had their chicken walkers buffed despite them being one of their best units pre-codex. Oh and GW somehow forgot that letting units stack a bunch of buffs at once isn’t a good idea. Right.

We haven’t seen this level of powercreep since 7th Ed. Ask necron players if their army is still good.

2) Rules complexity Is frankly way too high. In addition to releasing campaign books before all army books are out, GW seems to love creating rules for niche situations or solving issues in poor ways. Core is a perfect example of this. People weren’t castling vehicles for the heck of it, they were doing it because it was
the only way to make them efficient enough with -1 to hit heavy weapons. Now vehicles suck in large part because GW felt they needed to “balance” something that hadn’t even proven itself to be broken. Oh but they can shoot into CC! You just need to have a spreadsheet to figure out all the exceptions for what you can and can’t shoot at/with a vehicle in CC. Because GW needed to “balance” the “unfairness” that are vehicles. There are lot of these dumb restrictions like this. From limiting “commander” HQs to 1 per detachment rather than just using the blanket rule of 3 (here’s an idea GW, why just make sure commander units aren’t broken to begin with?) to making An “Always Sunny” level convoluted keyword system, it’s clear GW loves injecting complex restrictions into 9th.

Add in stuff like formatio… I mean “armies of renown”, tons of stratagems, relics, Warlord traits, and complex unit profiles, and all of sudden the game is just as messy as it was in 7th. Oh and FAQs, while nice, seem to have to fix more and more and therefore are too much now as well. I doubt even die-hard ad mech players can explain all the rules they have access to.

3) Price.
GW just loves beating inflation. The price bump this game has gotten was too extreme. This will even out over time, but it was much easier for me to justify a purchase in 8th than in 9th, which combined with the above problems, has decreased what I’ve bought considerably.

So Conclusion/TLDR 40k right now is an terrible spot due to the following. The balance is at its worst despite its complexity and restrictions being at there highest. Despite all this, I’m expected to pay an extreme premium to play right now. That leaves models as the only thing keeping the game afloat, and those have been good for around 7 years now.


Played against the beast snaggs today with my Chaos Marines. Game was over turn one, absolutely terminated all of his units off the board. It was laughable how weak the new orks are. They appear to have only a couple of decent stratagems, and associated plays. The Warboss on Squigg went charing into Abby and then he cried as I cut him to pieces.

I think your conclusion is based more on opinion then fact. A lot of my area stores cannot keep up with product demand. There have been 43 people added to our group pages in the last 30 days, and nearly 90% of them have bought their armies or are in the process of doing so. A lot of them are gaming and a huge group of about 20 just went to the Lone Star Open this weekend. Seems to me from where I'm sitting that the game is doing just fine. Now, I will say I sort of agree with you on some parts. My game today aside, I'm not super keen on playing it much. Chaos is a mess right now requiring like 4 books minimum to play, and the new rules in Belakor don't even work RAW because the keywords are all jacked off. AoS is a lot more fun, though the jury is still out on 3E for now.
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






 Bosskelot wrote:
Yes, Drukhari are strong and some of the Ork points costs look insane, but those are easy fixes.


Most whining about orks stems from people with zero experience with orks that fail to understand how BS5+ affects your shooting, that ork melee units are not M14"/FLY/advance+charge models or that buggies are severely limited by board space and the big nerf that forces them to stay in coherency. I've seen this idiot write a huge whine post about how OP a list with 18 squig riders, 9 squig buggies and 9 scrap jets is - guess what, he won't even be able fit half those model in his deployment zone, and even if he can, they will be stuck to each other and get nowhere until the game is over.

Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in ch
Warped Arch Heretic of Chaos





 Jidmah wrote:
 Bosskelot wrote:
Yes, Drukhari are strong and some of the Ork points costs look insane, but those are easy fixes.


Most whining about orks stems from people with zero experience with orks that fail to understand how BS5+ affects your shooting, that ork melee units are not M14"/FLY/advance+charge models or that buggies are severely limited by board space and the big nerf that forces them to stay in coherency. I've seen this idiot write a huge whine post about how OP a list with 18 squig riders, 9 squig buggies and 9 scrap jets is - guess what, he won't even be able fit half those model in his deployment zone, and even if he can, they will be stuck to each other and get nowhere until the game is over.


That sounds like a geometry riddle... more than playing the army...

what was that game again where you need to get that red car out of a parking lot?

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

In the 41st millennium there is only overpriced hamberders.

 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Gert wrote:

Its not the fault of the game if someone is a competitive person or that they have the money to get loads of stuff which results in them having a greater pool of units to choose from.


I disagree (at least partially). If you're just starting out then some things will be unbalanced through no fault of the game thanks to lack of flexibility from newer players' collections. However, both the degree of imbalance and the point where that imbalance stops mattering due to buying power are problems created by the overall lack of balance in the game. They are also problems that are exacerbated by the lack of depth in the game because skill expression only gets you so far in the face of a bunch of broken stuff. In a well balanced game it should be possible to build an army that's reasonably close to what the background says it should be and do well with it against most other opponents and builds, especially if you want to put the practice in to hone your skills with that force. The massive imbalance in power level between 40k's armies makes that very difficult, if not impossible, if you happen to choose the wrong army to start with.

I also have a problem with the idea you should just talk to your opponent to get the game you want. That might work for experienced players with fairly large collections but it's a terrible solution for newer players starting out together. More than once I've seen new players start together, pick the army they think is cool, then get disheartened because it turns out the army their friend chose is so much more powerful than theirs. 8.5 SM were the perfect example of this, but other examples exist in every edition of 40k thanks to its lack of balance. For newer players they understandably lack the skills and knowledge to identify what the issues are so even in situations where the disparity isn't as obvious they often can't solve the problem by talking to one another.
   
Made in gb
[DCM]
Moustache-twirling Princeps





Gone-to-ground in the craters of Coventry

mrFickle wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
The demographic has changed. The rise of the US ITC basically led to the game being where we are.

The American scene has a large vocal community of play to win type tournament players. If it's not capable of being a sport it's not worth sort of mindset.

Given how much the online presence on YouTube and podcasts grew and became ITC centric through this time span, it resulted in it becoming the most commonly talked about and portrayed way to play the game and conversely what the vocal player base wanted.

Roll on 9th ed and GW partner and hire with people from the US tourney scene to steer the game that way.
What does ITC stand for please?
I think, from memory, ITC is set of community-agreed rules applied to 40k for tournament play.
I'll look it up and update later.

4000 pts - 4000 pts - Harlies: 1000 pts - 1000 ptsDS:70+S+G++MB+IPw40k86/f+D++A++/cWD64R+T(T)DM+
IG/AM force nearly-finished pieces: http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/images-38888-41159_Armies%20-%20Imperial%20Guard.html
"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing." - George Bernard Shaw (probably)
Clubs around Coventry, UK 
   
Made in gb
Lit By the Flames of Prospero






@aphyon
Spoiler:
 aphyon wrote:

1. not my experience at all, i am at the FLGS every saturday for 12+ hours since i took over running late night gaming in 2008 and the average age of people starting 40K for the first time is between 20-30
No young children get into the hobby unless they have a parent that gets them into it because they already play. the hobby is just to expensive if you are buying from GW, in fact they have priced many long time adult players out of the game.
2. 3d printing is incredibly affordable as well as convenient. you can let the printer run while you are off at work, asleep or doing anything else around the house then presto you have your minis right there to assemble and paint without having to go anywhere to get them. you are also not limited to GW designs there are loads of designers that make STL files for troops or vehicles and such they are completely unique.

Point 1 isn't something I can argue with because each individual has their own experience but I will say that at least in the UK where GW stores are fairly prevalent and GW encourages things like co-operation with Scouts and has the Schools League, there's a lot of kids in the hobby.
As for point 2, how is leaving a printing machine unsupervised for hours at a time a safe thing to do? It isn't just about time with regards to printing either, I also have to learn how to do it and find good quality files. On top of this, I will not be allowed to use any of my printed materials at my local GW store where I do most of my gaming, or at WHW which I frequent as much as possible. And again to parrot off of my experiences, what parent is buying their child/teenager a 3d printer over a Warhammer Starter Box and some paints?


@Karol
Spoiler:
Karol wrote:

I started at 13, alongside almost 20 other people, at the very start of 8th ed. Aside for me and 2 other people no one from the group that started plays anymore. 9th through a mix of covid and rules shifts, made it so that the store, while it was open, consisted mostly of guys in their late 20s and mid 30s. In fact there are probably more 50+ year olds at the store then teens. The only lower demographic is women, and even that not by much. Most people in their early teens when they hear that an army costs upwards of 700$ , requires hours of painting, and the rules balances is sometimes wonky, will just buy something safer. Like a good phone or a playstation, or an Xbox if they live in a really large city.

TBF I think using this last year might be a bit of a bad example. It's hardly been "normal" as it was.


@SimLife
Spoiler:
 Sim-Life wrote:

Well, yes, it is. If two people take a 500/1000/2000/whatever pts list a good game will present opportunities for both to win somehow regardless of the content of their armies. Most games are able to do this. Regardless of the "pool" of units most armies should be roughly the same level in terms of ability to win regardless of what units are taken, either by the objectives of the game or by restrictions to army choices or both.

Ideally in a perfect world yes, games should come down to superior generalship and luck. But if my 500pts is the same 500pts every single game and my opponent is bringing a different list every single time due to the large collection they amassed in a short time due to the Bank of Parents, that's not a game balance issue. They can adapt and change tactics by swapping units in and out whereas I'm stuck with the same 20 Boyz, a Warboss, 5 Nobz, and Trukk.


@NotOnline!
Spoiler:
Not Online!!! wrote:
9th ? Not a problem?
Considering that 8th dexes baseline just suck in most cases in 9th? Even amongst a closeknitt group which has a common view upon the balance, right now some people more or less don't want to play right now against 9th dexes or even with their 9th dexes, understandably so.

Nevermind that GW WILLINGLY has adopted a DLC style monetisation policy and monetises balance patches too boot.

I am sorry, players might be part of the problem, but lets not pretend that the lionsshare of responsibiltiy doesn't lie with GW.

I'm playing 9th Ed with both 9th and 8th Ed Codexes against other 9th and 8th Ed Codexes. I've lost with an 8th VS 8th, 9th VS 9th, and 9th VS 8th. And again, personal experience that 9th and 8th were both hugely better for me personally than 5th through to 7th.


@Slipspace
Spoiler:
Slipspace wrote:

I disagree (at least partially). If you're just starting out then some things will be unbalanced through no fault of the game thanks to lack of flexibility from newer players' collections. However, both the degree of imbalance and the point where that imbalance stops mattering due to buying power are problems created by the overall lack of balance in the game. They are also problems that are exacerbated by the lack of depth in the game because skill expression only gets you so far in the face of a bunch of broken stuff. In a well balanced game it should be possible to build an army that's reasonably close to what the background says it should be and do well with it against most other opponents and builds, especially if you want to put the practice in to hone your skills with that force. The massive imbalance in power level between 40k's armies makes that very difficult, if not impossible, if you happen to choose the wrong army to start with.

I also have a problem with the idea you should just talk to your opponent to get the game you want. That might work for experienced players with fairly large collections but it's a terrible solution for newer players starting out together. More than once I've seen new players start together, pick the army they think is cool, then get disheartened because it turns out the army their friend chose is so much more powerful than theirs. 8.5 SM were the perfect example of this, but other examples exist in every edition of 40k thanks to its lack of balance. For newer players they understandably lack the skills and knowledge to identify what the issues are so even in situations where the disparity isn't as obvious they often can't solve the problem by talking to one another.

In an ideal world yes, a better balance between background and game would be much better but personally I haven't seen the massive power imbalance in 40k recently. I don't think tournament results are particularly useful because it's a competitive system by design and players aren't trying to win just for bragging rights. Yes, some armies have units/combos that are better than others but that's where IMO the conversation needs to happen. If your friend/opponent is stomping you flat for 10 games in a row despite trying your hardest to win, then a discussion should be had to see if that friend/opponent would be willing to make changes to accommodate a fairer game. There are loads of contributing factors to balance and it isn't all down to game design but that's the easiest thing to pick out.
If people are getting discouraged because their friends happen to have a broken OP army then I would say that's the perfect place for discussion to happen. Swapping armies, changing game sizes, making custom missions, or playing ones that aren't straight out of the rulebook, there are so many ways that balance can be addressed.

   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Jidmah wrote:
Most whining about orks stems from people with zero experience with orks that fail to understand how BS5+ affects your shooting, that ork melee units are not M14"/FLY/advance+charge models or that buggies are severely limited by board space and the big nerf that forces them to stay in coherency. I've seen this idiot write a huge whine post about how OP a list with 18 squig riders, 9 squig buggies and 9 scrap jets is - guess what, he won't even be able fit half those model in his deployment zone, and even if he can, they will be stuck to each other and get nowhere until the game is over.


I preferred your original point.
People are saying 40k is in its worst spot since 7th edition.... based on a codex they've almost certainly not played against, with people supposedly running models that have not even been released.

Its not based on facts - its just a whinge.

I think DE and Ad Mech - and possibly the new Orks although we should at least see - could do with some toning down. But the idea 40k is ruined because of it is just nonsense. In part, frankly, because these factions remain relatively rare across casual tables. Its not like "Oh I play an imperial faction? I'm throwing in a Castellan". Or "oh, Marines are currently best faction, guess who has a Marine army? Oh look, 50% of all players". as we saw in 2018 and 2019.

I also see for example at the Lone Star Open the "ask their players if their faction is still good" Necrons managed to come 4th. Now I can equally see smaller tournaments are almost wall to wall Ad Mech, implying the problem, but you still see Sisters, and Marines, and DG making appearances in those top ranks.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/26 10:08:21


 
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




TBF I think using this last year might be a bit of a bad example. It's hardly been "normal" as it was.

Most of the players that started in 8th left in 8th though. So it is not just a last year thing. 9th was a time of no new younger players in my area though, and that is all. The new player, at least around here, is most often someone in his mid to late 20s, who once played W40k already.


I think DE and Ad Mech - and possibly the new Orks although we should at least see - could do with some toning down. But the idea 40k is ruined because of it is just nonsense.

No, not really. In 8th, which IMO was worse then 9th, if you had to play an optimised list, you often ended with something that looked wierd. 6 flyers. 3-4 codex soups etc. Not everyone can afford that day one and not everyone may want to play it day one. The problem with DE or Mechanicus is that they were broken with stuff everyone owned . It is the same problem 2.0 marines brought to 8th, when suddenly aside for all the crazy FW stuff, the deadly model to have become the run of the mill intercessor. And this creates big problems at the not event tier of play. Because yeah the local eldar may play with flyer 2-4 of them, not the whole 6 real optimised lists do. Maybe the local marine player did use centurions in his RG list. all 3 he owned, not the 15 he should be running for perfect optimisation. But having basic troops do stuff crazy stuff? that always ended bad at the store level of playing. Because the chance of a DE player having wrecks, witchs and transports for them is huge. And this creates an arms race situation, and often to beat the casual version of top end armies, people require tournament style list. And then those people with their tournament lists play other people, and those people have to adjust to both the DE/Mechanicus players, and everyone else who is now running tournament lists. It doesn't ruin the game, but it makes it really hard to play for people who want to have fun playing non optimised lists, or who can't afford to buy a close to tournament level lists.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in us
Grumpy Longbeard




washington state USA

Point 1 isn't something I can argue with because each individual has their own experience but I will say that at least in the UK where GW stores are fairly prevalent and GW encourages things like co-operation with Scouts and has the Schools League, there's a lot of kids in the hobby.
As for point 2, how is leaving a printing machine unsupervised for hours at a time a safe thing to do? It isn't just about time with regards to printing either, I also have to learn how to do it and find good quality files. On top of this, I will not be allowed to use any of my printed materials at my local GW store where I do most of my gaming, or at WHW which I frequent as much as possible. And again to parrot off of my experiences, what parent is buying their child/teenager a 3d printer over a Warhammer Starter Box and some paints?


Point 1
There is nothing like that here, it is a private personal hobby unless a discord group or family start something there is no official organized set up.

Point 2
Yes the machine is perfectly safe to let run, One of the guys at the store bought a printer like 2 weeks ago, he didn't stop running it for a week and a half until he ran out of plastic to print with. long prints when he was asleep or at work and short prints when he was home.

Removed - Rule #1 please

They have no space, including table space, no bathrooms, short hours they only allow you to play the main GW games (when they are not pushing you to buy something)

None of the veteran players go there because we like to play lots of non-GW games, we don't care if they are GW models if you are playing a GW game, we can stay as late as we want, bring in food, have a large play space with many tables, plenty of parking and bathrooms.

I understand since you are on their home turf that they have a much larger footprint but the US gaming experience is more focused on the FLGS.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/26 10:55:42




GAMES-DUST1947/infinity/B5 wars/epic 40K/5th ed 40K/victory at sea/warmachine/battle tactics/monpoc/battletech/battlefleet gothic/castles in the sky,/heavy gear 
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

My only problem with 9th edition is that the basic missions are boring. I liked more the final 8th iteration of Maelstrom of War with the card minigame, etc... it had the best of all worlds.

But 9th is ITC redux and I never liked ITC.

For the rest, I believe codex are just rule wise a better quality product than most that has come before, with a real effort to make most untis ussable, add variety in gameplay and options even bypassing the (probably marketing driven) decission of no models no rules with stuff like kustom mek job, subkulturs, cryptek arkana, drukhari elite versions of their troops, etc.... They are much inferior in the fluff and "builder" part of the hobby, tought, so TBH at this point it would be better for them to be made free and just rules updates.

That doesnt mean old editions didn't had "gameplay feelings" that I liked more. And being honest, most old editions would be much better if GW back then was at least how they are know in relation to the speed of giving every faction rules, release of FAQ's, balance points ,etc... We have to remember how in old editions factions spend 6-8 years without codex, you had only faqs in the last couple of months before an edition ran over, you had the same broken combos, point costs, etc... for 5+ years on average, and the meta in general was much worse and solved and just straight up boring.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.

ERJAK wrote:
Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Gert wrote:

@Slipspace
In an ideal world yes, a better balance between background and game would be much better but personally I haven't seen the massive power imbalance in 40k recently. I don't think tournament results are particularly useful because it's a competitive system by design and players aren't trying to win just for bragging rights. Yes, some armies have units/combos that are better than others but that's where IMO the conversation needs to happen. If your friend/opponent is stomping you flat for 10 games in a row despite trying your hardest to win, then a discussion should be had to see if that friend/opponent would be willing to make changes to accommodate a fairer game. There are loads of contributing factors to balance and it isn't all down to game design but that's the easiest thing to pick out.
If people are getting discouraged because their friends happen to have a broken OP army then I would say that's the perfect place for discussion to happen. Swapping armies, changing game sizes, making custom missions, or playing ones that aren't straight out of the rulebook, there are so many ways that balance can be addressed.


I agree tournament results only really matter if people are playing tournament armies. What really maters is the general imbalance between Codices and typical armies taken from them. That's why I brought up 8.5 SM before. that book was so ridiculous it was almost impossible not to create some overpowered army by accident in comparison to any non-SM army that wasn't specifically trying to be hyper competitive.

The rest of your points kind of miss the point of what I was saying. Yes, it's possible to have a conversation about how to balance things better. New players are especially poorly suited to having those conversations because they don't know how to balance things due to lack of experience. So while I can help out a new player and put together a 1000 point list to fight their random collection of Tau stuff two less experienced players finding their way into the hobby together just can't do that as effectively. How is making a custom mission going to help 2 new players who frankly have no real grasp of the game at this point? They're just as likely to create further imbalance as they are to fix their problems.

It also seems to be a uniquely GW thing to put the emphasis on the players to fix the problems of the system's terrible balance (other than systems that are explicitly designed with that sort of co-operation in mind, of course, like many historicals). The balance problems are exacerbated by the lack of skill expression in 40k. All games involving list building will have disparity between good and bad lists, which is fine, but 40k's disparity is too big and the financial investment required to build an army makes that disparity even worse. It's really disheartening to have to tell someone the really cool unit they bought for their army is terrible and will actively handicap them even in fairly casual games because GW's balance sucks so hard. As a practical example, a few years ago I helped a new player get into X-Wing in much the same way I would help a new player get into 40k. I played some games against them, trying to balance my list against theirs and not taking the absolute best tournament-winning list. I gave them advice about how to improve. The vast majority of this advice was not about their list, but about improving their skills in-game. There were some tweaks to ships and upgrades but fairly minor ones and all of them were quick and cheap to implement. Compare that to a new 40k player that chooses the "wrong" army and has to endure an underpowered, uninteresting mess for months or years. It's really disheartening having to say to someone they've basically wasted their money on some stuff (at least until the random GW balance swings back in that unit's favour) and they now need to spend even more time and money getting a totally different unit if they want to have even a halfway decent army.
   
Made in de
Dakka Veteran



Bamberg / Erlangen

 aphyon wrote:
Removed - Rule #1 please

Every week there is another broad, unverifiable, absurd and insulting statement to a big part of the player base, but if you argue against that kind of gak, you are a die hard white knight lol.

Been 3 times to a GW store in my life, so I got no horse in this race... but you need a reality check. An unpleasant amount of people on this board do.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/26 10:55:52


Imperial Guard Space Marines
 
   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Macon, GA

Argive wrote:Bloat of rules upon more layered rules does not make the game more complex. Just makes it more adminy...


Sim-Life wrote:
 Polonius wrote:

the core rules are far simpler than at any point, but the layers of rules that can affect a unit are deeper than I've ever seen.


40k is the Skyrim of tabletop games. Wide as an ocean but as deep as puddle. Calling 40k deep is insulting to games with actual depth. Any "depth" 40k has is just the illusion of choice.


Can we may decided upon a term then for how to refer to the situation of a simple squad having it's own datasheet with rules, two auras, a psychic power, a prayer, a strategem, and a relic? Since apparently complex and deeply layered are too positive for some?



My Painted Armies
: Co. B, 37th Praetorian IG: 21,000pts
KOW Ogres: 4500 points
Loyalist Emperor's Children: 2500 points 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 aphyon wrote:


They have no space, including table space, no bathrooms, short hours they only allow you to play the main GW games (when they are not pushing you to buy something)

None of the veteran players go there because we like to play lots of non-GW games, we don't care if they are GW models if you are playing a GW game, we can stay as late as we want, bring in food, have a large play space with many tables, plenty of parking and bathrooms.

I understand since you are on their home turf that they have a much larger footprint but the US gaming experience is more focused on the FLGS.


In general you're correct - GW stores are about the worst location to play games I can think of. However, in this specific instance the poster mentions going to WHW, which is one of the best gaming spaces in the world, so GW manages to simultaneously occupy both ends of the spectrum.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Polonius wrote:
Argive wrote:Bloat of rules upon more layered rules does not make the game more complex. Just makes it more adminy...


Sim-Life wrote:
 Polonius wrote:

the core rules are far simpler than at any point, but the layers of rules that can affect a unit are deeper than I've ever seen.


40k is the Skyrim of tabletop games. Wide as an ocean but as deep as puddle. Calling 40k deep is insulting to games with actual depth. Any "depth" 40k has is just the illusion of choice.


Can we may decided upon a term then for how to refer to the situation of a simple squad having it's own datasheet with rules, two auras, a psychic power, a prayer, a strategem, and a relic? Since apparently complex and deeply layered are too positive for some?




"Complicated" is probably the word you're looking for. Not that I think your point was particularly hard to grasp from what you said.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/07/26 11:22:46


 
   
Made in gb
Lit By the Flames of Prospero






Slipspace wrote:

In general you're correct - GW stores are about the worst location to play games I can think of. However, in this specific instance the poster mentions going to WHW, which is one of the best gaming spaces in the world, so GW manages to simultaneously occupy both ends of the spectrum.

Oh for sure the old location was a serious mess at times. It was on the Royal Mile which is never quiet and during the Fringe Festival or festive period, it was almost impossible to get to. All the tourists would pick up your stuff with their grubby hands and ask annoying questions in the middle of a shooting phase. However, they hosted loads of lock in's for Apocalypse games, friendly tournaments, and even had a LotR club going for about 6 months.
The new location has the shop and gaming areas completely separate. It's much more spacious and I honestly can't wait to get in.
Also, yes WHW is amazing. It's one of those things where once you've been, the local just doesn't compare anymore. I've been through the museum, like 3 times, and every time I still want to go and do it again. The FW store is a serious concern and my wallet weeps every time I even look. Even saw Chris Peach once.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/26 11:39:45


 
   
Made in pl
Regular Dakkanaut




 Polonius wrote:
Argive wrote:Bloat of rules upon more layered rules does not make the game more complex. Just makes it more adminy...


Sim-Life wrote:
 Polonius wrote:

the core rules are far simpler than at any point, but the layers of rules that can affect a unit are deeper than I've ever seen.


40k is the Skyrim of tabletop games. Wide as an ocean but as deep as puddle. Calling 40k deep is insulting to games with actual depth. Any "depth" 40k has is just the illusion of choice.


Can we may decided upon a term then for how to refer to the situation of a simple squad having it's own datasheet with rules, two auras, a psychic power, a prayer, a strategem, and a relic? Since apparently complex and deeply layered are too positive for some?




Idk, convoluted? Overcomplicated? Bloated? A deep but elegant game can produce complex game states out of simple rules. Wh40k produces simple game states out of long and bloated rules.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: