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 ie
Ruthless Rafkin





 Rhia_Stadtfeld wrote:
I'm not gonna quote you both as that'd make a reply far too long, this may seem an incredibly stupid question but what do you mean when you say "narrative play"?

As you can probably tell by my post count, as far as actually using a forum and trying to network a little and talk more in the community I'm very new here / in general. It always used to be quite a solitary hobby for me with exception of 6 or so friends

Thanks for your insight though, I was leaning towards a 500 pt patrol style start point after attempting to make a few 2k lists


Firstly, don't play Crusade, despite what SOME people on here may say. It dumps a load of extra gak and book keeping on the game that it doesn't need for beginners,

Narritive means "playing for story". Like enacting desperate last stands or sieges and such. It works in 40k because it lets you play in such a way that the game isn't defined by "winner" or "loser". For example in 8th me and my friends enacted the last stage of the Devestation of Baal with a combined force of Blood Angels and Ultramarines lead by Guilliman fighting off my nids (because I have loads of them) using a seige scenario from the 8th Ed BRB. They scored points by killing whole units, I scored by having units past a certain point on the board. It was unbalanced as hell (especially as 8th Ed Guilliman was there) but it wasn't supposed to be balanced and I went in knowing that, so a good time was had by all as we enacted a bit of 40k history on the table.

Honestly though, I would say start with 500pts Matched over Crusade. You can start with simple units using basic rules and work your way up to a Crusade campaign without having to worry about extra things like Agendas or XP or keeping track of who levelled where.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/12 16:39:33



 
   
Made in si
Ravenous Beast Form







In short, narrative play is any scenario that isn't a perfectly symmetrical tournament game.

Posters on ignore list: 34

40k Potica Edition - 40k patch with reactions, suppression and all that good stuff. Feedback thread here.

Gangs of Nu Ork - Necromunda / Gorkamorka expansion supporting all faction. Feedback thread here
   
Made in es
[DCM]
Secret Inquisitorial Eldar Xenexecutor






your mind

 Rhia_Stadtfeld wrote:
I didn't actually realise the years and dates of editions till I looked last night, I /actually/ last probably played in about 04, but entered the hobby in around 97. (I feel old af now)

With that in mind, given the amount of information on editions in here, how would you guys recommend I get back in?

Play smaller scale games? Play what I know? Or just step back out again, It sounds as though unless you've been with it since the release of 9th, forget about it, as by the time I've got a handle on it we'll be in 10th


My suggestion here would be that this would make a great thread of its own.. lots of people might benefit from such a thread. You will get more feedback dedicated to this question… just a thought.

   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 Sim-Life wrote:
Firstly, don't play Crusade...
Or, better, play whatever you want.

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

 
   
Made in gb
Crazed Zealot




South East UK

I've knocked out this thread :-

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/800871.page

For people with advice for newbs or that want to chip in on when and why the left the hobby or rejoined it as I don't want to overly derail this thread.

Thanks though for those who did reply here <3
   
Made in us
Grumpy Longbeard





washington state USA

From my own personal experience that is completely anecdotal.

Almost every player i have met that has started in 8th edition and has never experienced anything prior, who has taken a dive into playing 5th edition with us have all basically sad the same thing- when we show them the old lore based rules (such as last night when i broke out the 3rd ed chapter approved with the schaffers last chancers entry and armored company list)
the response is usually things like

"this stuff is great!"
"why did GW take this away"
"why did they remove these options"
"this looks like it would be fun to play"
"this makes way more sense"


Understandably these players are all not of the tournament mindset that 9th edition is trying to cater to. they like the minis, hobby, the universe or multiple related things about the 40K setting. they also want to use models they like, think look cool etc... without chasing the meta and being forced to only play what works best in the competitive setting that is 9th.

Is that peak? i don't really know, what i have noticed is that even some of our most ardent GW supporters are so irritated with GWs behavior towards the game and the fan base they are all pretty much walking away from the game either to play older editions or entirely different games like infinity, classic battletech, star wars legion etc...



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 nl
Fresh-Faced New User




Peak 40k was definitely 4th/5th (before GK and Necrons broke the game). 9th does a lot of things well, and is reasonably functional as a game. However, I feel there are a number of core problems with the game right now:

  • The game feels schizofrenic. The core rules are very streamlined (I would say too much so - I still think it's weird that lasguns can hurt a land raider for example), but then they added incredibly granular rules bloat in the various codices, which doesn't mesh with the core rules very well. I feel the core rules need a bit more detail (bring back the old to-wound table, stacking modifiers - at least stack moving + heavy with terrain/opponent's rules, USRs, better terrain rules, etc), and army rules need to be toned down.

  • The missions and secondaries all feel very samey. While this makes the game more 'balanced', it also makes it a bit boring after a couple of games. I'd prefer more variety in the core missions, and less focus on secondaries, or reduced bookkeeping for secondaries.

  • All the numbers are too big. Stat inflation is a massive problem: weapons do too much damage, basic marines have too many attacks, movement speed is too high, the table is too small. I feel the basic movement speed (i.e.: a guardsman) should be 4", so there can be a better spread of movement stats. Reduce the range on guns (18" pistols is bananas), and reduce all damage/attack stats as necessary to curb the insane lethality of the game.

  • The game resembles a board game more than a war game right now. Stratagems, command points, auras: none of this 'feels' right for 40k. I think having some stratagems could be OK, but moving essential abilities to stratagems, creating gotcha stratagems, and having armies essentially depend on stratagems moves a lot of the game to the planning phase of the game, instead of the actual playing phase of the game. I'd much prefer clever maneuvering and gameplay to account for more. Some command rerolls/insane bravery stratagems is great to mitigate some poor rolls, or have some more control over the game. Everything else should go IMHO, or be rolled back into unit rules.
  •    
    Made in us
    Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







     H.B.M.C. wrote:
     Sim-Life wrote:
    Firstly, don't play Crusade...
    Or, better, play whatever you want.


    Perhaps "Crusade isn't a great choice for a new player, as it adds an extra layer of stuff to keep track of on top of just trying to understand the game" conveys the sentiment better?

    Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
    Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
    Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
       
    Made in it
    Gargantuan Gargant




    Italy

    Radium wrote:

    The missions and secondaries all feel very samey. While this makes the game more 'balanced', it also makes it a bit boring after a couple of games. I'd prefer more variety in the core missions, and less focus on secondaries, or reduced bookkeeping for secondaries.


    A legit opinion, but compared to 4th or 5th? Back then there were only three missions to play and one (Kill Points) was extremely harsh on some armies, to the point that in friendly games most people purposefully avoided that mission and the concept of Kill Points is the most boring concept possible. It was much more elegant and fair the WHFB solution, to count the points the costed killed units or half killed units, instead of Kill Points, where a 30ppm unit counts 1KP exactly like a 500 points one, but we didn't get that in 40k.

    There's way more variety in the missions now than in older editions, and secondaries contribute to add even more variety.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     AnomanderRake wrote:
     H.B.M.C. wrote:
     Sim-Life wrote:
    Firstly, don't play Crusade...
    Or, better, play whatever you want.


    Perhaps "Crusade isn't a great choice for a new player, as it adds an extra layer of stuff to keep track of on top of just trying to understand the game" conveys the sentiment better?


    I second this, Crusade is not easy to handle for someone that is trying to learn the game. I'd suggest to play matched 1000 points if the goal is to learn the game mechanics. Smaller formats only if players don't have enough models, as at 1000 points it feels like a proper 40k experience while 500 points is closer to Kill Team.

    This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/13 10:42:10



     
       
    Made in ie
    Ruthless Rafkin





     Blackie wrote:


    I second this, Crusade is not easy to handle for someone that is trying to learn the game. I'd suggest to play matched 1000 points if the goal is to learn the game mechanics. Smaller formats only if players don't have enough models, as at 1000 points it feels like a proper 40k experience while 500 points is closer to Kill Team.


    Disagree. Its easier to learn a game in small increments. Unless you're playing with just unit and weapon statlines and no unit or faction special rules 1000pts will have too many things to keep track of. 500pts gives you enough room to learn the fundamentals without overwhelming people. If you're worried about the "proper 40k experience" whatever that is then why not just go straight to 2000pts?

    This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/13 10:59:36



     
       
    Made in de
    Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






     H.B.M.C. wrote:
     Sim-Life wrote:
    Firstly, don't play Crusade...
    Or, better, play whatever you want.


    The core problem of many people here seems to be that there are multiple, completely different ways to play and that people cannot play the way they want because of the group of players around them.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     Sim-Life wrote:
    Disagree. Its easier to learn a game in small increments. Unless you're playing with just unit and weapon statlines and no unit or faction special rules 1000pts will have too many things to keep track of. 500pts gives you enough room to learn the fundamentals without overwhelming people. If you're worried about the "proper 40k experience" whatever that is then why not just go straight to 2000pts?


    Because 2000 points takes too long if one player doesn't know what's going on.

    I have taught dozens of players how to play, and "baby's first game" is a waste of both your and the new player's time. Most people interested in learning 40k aren't dumb kids who don't know anything, but people who have played much more complex TCG, video games, board games or RPGs before. They can handle a psyker with a buff spell and units with more than one special weapon easily.

    If you don't trust them to cope with more than bolter marines and a power sword captain, you are boring them and might even lose them for the hobby. If you give them a proper army made of straight forward units with one or two more complex ones sprinkled in and you are much more likely to not only teach them the game, but also keep them interested.
    Sure, they won't be using those things in the most optimal way, but you are trying to teach them how to play. Teaching them how to win comes afterwards.

    That said, I wouldn't use matched play at all. I just slap two objectives in the middle and have each count 5VP during the command phase. Depending on the player, stratagems can be limited to just re-rolls or just generic ones and I never use army or detachment rules.

    This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/09/13 11:20:07


    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 nl
    Fresh-Faced New User




     Blackie wrote:


    A legit opinion, but compared to 4th or 5th? Back then there were only three missions to play and one (Kill Points) was extremely harsh on some armies, to the point that in friendly games most people purposefully avoided that mission and the concept of Kill Points is the most boring concept possible. It was much more elegant and fair the WHFB solution, to count the points the costed killed units or half killed units, instead of Kill Points, where a 30ppm unit counts 1KP exactly like a 500 points one, but we didn't get that in 40k.

    There's way more variety in the missions now than in older editions, and secondaries contribute to add even more variety.


    KPs came to be in 5th. In 4th, you definitely counted the actual points value of the units (including half value for units under half strength, wounded characters, and damaged vehicles).

    I'm not saying 4th or 5th had the best variety in missions or anything, and there absolutely is merit to the current system that separates the deployment map from the actual mission, but 4th had good mission variety (if you played the alpha/beta/omega versions as well). Secondaries are a great concept, but the current ones feel gamey to me, and I'd much rather have simplified secondaries, and preferable just 'generic' ones per mission, instead of choosing them yourself (which may be an unpopular opinion, but it could help create a strong sense of focus for the mission by having the primary and secondary objectives synergise rather than just be completely separate checkboxes to keep in mind).
       
    Made in dk
    Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker






    Radium wrote:
     Blackie wrote:


    A legit opinion, but compared to 4th or 5th? Back then there were only three missions to play and one (Kill Points) was extremely harsh on some armies, to the point that in friendly games most people purposefully avoided that mission and the concept of Kill Points is the most boring concept possible. It was much more elegant and fair the WHFB solution, to count the points the costed killed units or half killed units, instead of Kill Points, where a 30ppm unit counts 1KP exactly like a 500 points one, but we didn't get that in 40k.

    There's way more variety in the missions now than in older editions, and secondaries contribute to add even more variety.


    KPs came to be in 5th. In 4th, you definitely counted the actual points value of the units (including half value for units under half strength, wounded characters, and damaged vehicles).

    I'm not saying 4th or 5th had the best variety in missions or anything, and there absolutely is merit to the current system that separates the deployment map from the actual mission, but 4th had good mission variety (if you played the alpha/beta/omega versions as well). Secondaries are a great concept, but the current ones feel gamey to me, and I'd much rather have simplified secondaries, and preferable just 'generic' ones per mission, instead of choosing them yourself (which may be an unpopular opinion, but it could help create a strong sense of focus for the mission by having the primary and secondary objectives synergise rather than just be completely separate checkboxes to keep in mind).

    Secondaries provide a way to equally apply an anti-spam filter across missions, but there also needs to be alternatives in case your opponent is not spamming. Losing every game on mission 4 and winning every game on mission 2 when you are playing a vehicle-heavy army is BS, it means too much of the outcome of the game is decided without player choice and before the first turn has begun.
       
    Made in gb
    Ship's Officer





    Bristol (UK)

    I truly hate secondaries. I just want to play a game and it's an unholy amount of faff. They present you with three options; learn the secondaries and which ones are best in a given matchup, spend 15 minutes before a game reading and choosing them, or don't think about it and just pick whatever.
    The first is a lot of information to ingrain, totally impractical for a casual player. The second is a huge waste of time for everyone involved. The third is doomed to failure as secondaries are fully half the game, throwing away good choices can really hurt you.

    I much prefer Open War. Simple, you draw the cards and you play the mission. But still varied and interesting.

    This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/13 11:39:05


     
       
    Made in dk
    Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker






     kirotheavenger wrote:
    I truly hate secondaries. I just want to play a game and it's an unholy amount of faff. They present you with three options; learn the secondaries and which ones are best in a given matchup, spend 15 minutes before a game reading and chosing them, or pick semi-randomly.
    The first is a lot of information to ingrain, totally impractical for a casual player. The second is a huge waste of time for everyone involved. The third is doomed to failure as secondaries are fully half the game

    I much prefer Open War. Simple, you draw the cards and you play the mission. But still varied and interesting.

    How is Open War preferable to picking semi-randomly? I guess it forces your opponent down to your level. Open War is not fair, you might as well give each player 3D6 VP at the end of the game and stop using secondaries.
       
    Made in gb
    Ship's Officer





    Bristol (UK)

    That's certainly an extreme take, so extreme as to be irrelevant I dare say.
    I've not found any Open War objectives to be too one sided. Sometimes the Twists can be a little too onesided, at least with the 8th deck. Not sure if the 9th deck has resolved that. But if you don't want the Twists, don't use them. Content yourself with just Mission and Deployment.

    Yes it can be a bit random, but I like to use aStar Wars Legion inspired method of drawing cards, which gives both players some agency.
    Although most opponents would rather not bother and prefer to just draw.

    I've played in multiple tournaments that used Open War, and a lot of people feel like the simplicity creates more balance. A lot of these groups are casual players that have to resort to choosing secondaries by the third method and are basically out of the game before it starts.

    This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/13 11:44:16


     
       
    Made in us
    Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






    Primarily, the main problem I have at this point is compared to other games I play, 40k feels incredibly un-interactive and incredibly just drop-dead instant deadly, and I think that impression is more based on 'a large fraction of your units basically only get to TRY to do one single thing before they die' than any actual 'how long does your army last in terms of turn-count.'

    Because I've been playing the new kill team, and that game only lasts 4 turns maximum, and AOS which is also generally decided on or around turn 4. But because of the alternating play mechanics in both games, you feel like you're continuously playing, continuously participating rather than just 'ok, my turn to remove models and die now.' like 40k tends to create.

    I also dont really know that the missions help out that much. I just recently played a game where the dice basically broke incredibly wrong for me on turn 2 (wych cult list where literally 100% of my close combat units on turn 2 failed to get in to combat rolling just nothing but 2s through 5s on their charge rolls) and I went super hard into trying to maximise scoring, pulled up a respectable lead of 54pts to 35pts at the end of turn 3, but then I was tabled top of turn 4, and turn 4 and turn 5 my opponent was just able to easily rack up 30 points by sitting his 3 remaining units on objectives and doing actions.

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

    -the_scotsman"

    -ERJAK 
       
    Made in ca
    Regular Dakkanaut





     the_scotsman wrote:
    Primarily, the main problem I have at this point is compared to other games I play, 40k feels incredibly un-interactive and incredibly just drop-dead instant deadly, and I think that impression is more based on 'a large fraction of your units basically only get to TRY to do one single thing before they die' than any actual 'how long does your army last in terms of turn-count.'

    Because I've been playing the new kill team, and that game only lasts 4 turns maximum, and AOS which is also generally decided on or around turn 4. But because of the alternating play mechanics in both games, you feel like you're continuously playing, continuously participating rather than just 'ok, my turn to remove models and die now.' like 40k tends to create.

    I also dont really know that the missions help out that much. I just recently played a game where the dice basically broke incredibly wrong for me on turn 2 (wych cult list where literally 100% of my close combat units on turn 2 failed to get in to combat rolling just nothing but 2s through 5s on their charge rolls) and I went super hard into trying to maximise scoring, pulled up a respectable lead of 54pts to 35pts at the end of turn 3, but then I was tabled top of turn 4, and turn 4 and turn 5 my opponent was just able to easily rack up 30 points by sitting his 3 remaining units on objectives and doing actions.


    Strongly agree here.

    Almost every 40k game I play comes down to a weird presentation of "tactical choice". Instead of normal, tried and true wargame strategy such as unit facing, suppression and morale, command and control mechanics, 40k is bogged down in strange cryptic decision making to pass as "strategy".

    For example, the entire "units are obscured unless a base of the unit touches the footprint of the obscuring terrain feature in which case they are not obscured". Its things like that which mean we spend more time fiddling around with game semantics than actual tabletop gaming. How are rules like that better than classic wargame choices such as "do a full move and shoot once, move half range and shoot twice" or "roll a leadership test to determine if the unit completes orders as requested".

    The further 40k strays from classic wargame design principles created by, frankly, better games designers, it unsurprisingly gets worse.
       
    Made in us
    Grumpy Longbeard





    washington state USA

    A legit opinion, but compared to 4th or 5th? Back then there were only three missions to play and one (Kill Points) was extremely harsh on some armies,


    That is not the mission options i remember
    kill points or unit kill value prior to that were a thing but there was also-
    .1- objective in each players deployment zone to defend
    .2-d3+2 objectives to take and hold
    .3-center objective(king of the hill)
    .4-move-able center objective(up to 6" per player turn)
    .5-table quarters (the quarter opposite was worth 2 VP and each of the others to the sides were worth 1(your own was worth zero to you)
    .6-over-run/breakout-playing from end to end VP for getting units into or keeping them out of the defenders back 24" zone (defender starts at the halfway point on the table).

    So that's 7 mission options of which 6 of them force players to move off of just gun-line style play especially when adequate terrain is on the table that blocks LOS.

    This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/13 12:06:27




    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 it
    Gargantuan Gargant




    Italy

     Sim-Life wrote:
     Blackie wrote:


    I second this, Crusade is not easy to handle for someone that is trying to learn the game. I'd suggest to play matched 1000 points if the goal is to learn the game mechanics. Smaller formats only if players don't have enough models, as at 1000 points it feels like a proper 40k experience while 500 points is closer to Kill Team.


    Disagree. Its easier to learn a game in small increments. Unless you're playing with just unit and weapon statlines and no unit or faction special rules 1000pts will have too many things to keep track of. 500pts gives you enough room to learn the fundamentals without overwhelming people. If you're worried about the "proper 40k experience" whatever that is then why not just go straight to 2000pts?


    Because 2000 points game take forever for people trying to learn the rules who are constanly double check books. I don't think there are too many things to keep track of at 1000 points, not at all. IMHO if you play 500 points for a while, then go up to 1000 and so on you're only wasting time. Game isn't that difficult, 2-3 matches at 1000 points and you'll learn all the basic stuff.


     
       
    Made in dk
    Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker






    Spoiler:
    1st Place

    Anthony Vanella - Goonhammer Open



    ++ Patrol Detachment 0CP (Aeldari - Drukhari) [35 PL, 620pts] ++

    + Configuration +

    Detachment Command Cost

    Obsession
    . *Custom Coven*: Dark Technomancers (All-Consuming)

    + HQ +

    Drazhar [8 PL, 145pts]: Hatred Eternal, Warlord

    + Troops +

    Wracks [3 PL, 45pts]
    . Acothyst: Electrocorrosive Whip
    . 4x Wracks: 4x Wrack Blade

    + Heavy Support +

    Cronos [12 PL, 215pts]
    . Cronos: Spirit Probe
    . Cronos
    . Cronos

    Cronos [12 PL, 215pts]
    . Cronos: Spirit Probe
    . Cronos
    . Cronos

    ++ Patrol Detachment 0CP (Aeldari - Drukhari) [23 PL, 460pts, 9CP] ++

    + Configuration +

    Battle Size [12CP]: 3. Strike Force (101-200 Total PL / 1001-2000 Points)

    Detachment Command Cost

    Obsession: Cult of Strife: The Spectacle of Murder (Restricted)

    Raiding Forces - CP Refund

    + Stratagems +

    Stratagem: Prizes from the Dark City [-1CP]

    + HQ +

    Succubus [4 PL, 75pts, -1CP]: 1 - Adrenalight (Combat Drug), Competitive Edge, Stratagem: Tolerated Ambition, The Triptych Whip
    . Agoniser & Archite Glaive
    . Show Stealer (Strife): Show Stealer

    + Troops +

    Hekatrix Bloodbrides [8 PL, 135pts, -1CP]: 2 - Grave Lotus (Combat Drug)
    . Hekatrix: Agoniser, Morvaines's Agoniser, Splinter Pistol, Stratagem: Hekatrix of the Crucibael
    . 8x Hekatrix Bloodbride: 8x Hekatarii Blade, 8x Plasma Grenades, 8x Splinter Pistol
    . Hekatrix Bloodbride w/ Shardnet and Impaler: Shardnet and Impaler

    + Elites +

    Incubi [4 PL, 80pts]
    . 4x Incubi: 4x Klaive
    . Klaivex: Klaive

    + Fast Attack +

    Hellions [7 PL, 170pts]: 1 - Adrenalight (Combat Drug)
    . Helliarch: Hellglaive
    . 9x Hellion: 9x Hellglaive, 9x Splinter Pods

    ++ Patrol Detachment 0CP (Aeldari - Drukhari) [55 PL, 916pts, -1CP] ++

    + Configuration +

    Detachment Command Cost

    Obsession: Kabal of the Black Heart: Thirst for Power

    Raiding Forces - CP Refund

    + No Force Org Slot +

    Court of the Archon [10 PL, 136pts]
    . Sslyth
    . Sslyth
    . Sslyth
    . Sslyth
    . Ur-Ghul
    . Ur-Ghul
    . Ur-Ghul
    . Ur-Ghul

    + HQ +

    Archon [5 PL, 85pts, -1CP]: Ancient Evil, Huskblade, Overlord, Splinter Pistol, Stratagem: Tolerated Ambition, The Djin Blade
    . Splintered Genius (Black Heart): Splintered Genius

    + Troops +

    Kabalite Trueborn [8 PL, 140pts]
    . 6x Kabalite Trueborn: 6x Splinter Rifle
    . Kabalite Trueborn w/ Heavy Weapon: Dark Lance
    . Kabalite Trueborn w/ Special Weapon: Blaster
    . Kabalite Trueborn w/ Special Weapon: Blaster
    . Trueborn Sybarite: Phantasm Grenade Launcher, Splinter Rifle

    + Elites +

    Incubi [4 PL, 80pts]
    . 4x Incubi: 4x Klaive
    . Klaivex: Klaive

    Incubi [4 PL, 80pts]
    . 4x Incubi: 4x Klaive
    . Klaivex: Klaive

    + Dedicated Transport +

    Raider [6 PL, 95pts]: Dark Lance, Kabal

    Raider [6 PL, 100pts]: Dark Lance, Grisly Trophies, Kabal

    Raider [6 PL, 100pts]: Dark Lance, Grisly Trophies, Kabal

    Raider [6 PL, 100pts]: Dark Lance, Grisly Trophies, Kabal

    ++ Total: [113 PL, 1,996pts, 8CP] ++


    vs

    Spoiler:
    2nd Place

    Adrian Phillips - Goonhammer Open



    ++ Battalion Detachment 0CP (Imperium - Adeptus Mechanicus) [100 PL, 1,997pts, 7CP] ++

    + Configuration +

    Army of Renown - Skitarii Veteran Cohort

    Battle Size [12CP]: 3. Strike Force (101-200 Total PL / 1001-2000 Points)

    Detachment Command Cost

    Forge World Choice: Forge World: Mars

    + Stratagems +

    Stratagem: Archeotech Specialist [-2CP]: 2x Archeotech Specialist

    Stratagem: Artefactotum [-1CP]: Artefactotum

    Stratagem: Host of the Intermediary [-1CP]: Host of the Intermediary

    Stratagem: Mechanicus Locum [-1CP]: Mechanicus Locum

    + HQ +

    Skitarii Marshal [3 PL, 45pts]: Control Stave, Radium Serpenta, Relic (Skitarii Veteran Cohort): Cantic Thrallnet, Warlord, Warlord Trait (Skitarii Veteran Cohort): Calculate Without Diversion

    Skitarii Marshal [3 PL, 45pts]: Control Stave, Mechanicus Locum, Radium Serpenta, Relic: Exemplar's Eternity, Warlord Trait (Codex 4): Archived Engagements

    Tech-Priest Manipulus [6 PL, 105pts]: Logi, Magnarail lance, Manipulus Mechadendrites, Omnissian Staff, Relic: Raiment of the Technomartyr

    + Troops +

    Skitarii Rangers [9 PL, 215pts]: Enhanced Data-Tether, Omnispex
    . Ranger Alpha: Galvanic Rifle, Host of the Intermediary, Power sword, Warlord Trait (Codex 5): Firepoint Telemetry Cache
    . 19x Skitarii Ranger: 19x Galvanic Rifle

    Skitarii Rangers [3 PL, 50pts]
    . Ranger Alpha: Galvanic Rifle
    . 4x Skitarii Ranger: 4x Galvanic Rifle

    Skitarii Rangers [3 PL, 50pts]
    . Ranger Alpha: Galvanic Rifle
    . 4x Skitarii Ranger: 4x Galvanic Rifle

    Skitarii Rangers [3 PL, 50pts]
    . Ranger Alpha: Galvanic Rifle
    . 4x Skitarii Ranger: 4x Galvanic Rifle

    Skitarii Vanguards [9 PL, 210pts]: Enhanced Data-Tether, Omnispex
    . 19x Skitarii Vanguard: 19x Radium Carbine
    . Vanguard Alpha: Radium Carbine

    Skitarii Vanguards [3 PL, 50pts]
    . 4x Skitarii Vanguard: 4x Radium Carbine
    . Vanguard Alpha: Radium Carbine

    + Elites +

    Sicarian Infiltrators [4 PL, 85pts]
    . Infiltrator Princeps (Flechette/Taser): Flechette Blaster, Taser Goad
    . 4x Sicarian Infiltrator (Flechette/Taser): 4x Flechette Blaster, 4x Taser Goad

    Sicarian Infiltrators [4 PL, 85pts]
    . Infiltrator Princeps (Flechette/Taser): Flechette Blaster, Taser Goad
    . 4x Sicarian Infiltrator (Flechette/Taser): 4x Flechette Blaster, 4x Taser Goad

    Sicarian Infiltrators [8 PL, 136pts]
    . Infiltrator Princeps (Stub/Sword): Power Sword, Stubcarbine
    . 7x Sicarian Infiltrator (Stub/Sword): 7x Power Sword, 7x Stubcarbine

    Sicarian Ruststalkers [8 PL, 153pts]
    . Ruststalker Princeps (Blades): Chordclaw, Transonic Blades
    . 8x Sicarian Ruststalker (Blades): 8x Transonic Blades

    Sicarian Ruststalkers [8 PL, 170pts]
    . Ruststalker Princeps (Blades): Artefactotum, Chordclaw, Relic: Temporcopia, Transonic Blades
    . 9x Sicarian Ruststalker (Blades): 9x Transonic Blades

    + Fast Attack +

    Ironstrider Ballistarii [12 PL, 225pts]
    . Ironstrider Ballistarius: Twin Cognis Lascannon
    . Ironstrider Ballistarius: Twin Cognis Lascannon
    . Ironstrider Ballistarius: Twin Cognis Lascannon

    Pteraxii Sterylizors [8 PL, 190pts]
    . 9x Pteraxii Sterylizor: 9x Phosphor torch, 9x Pteraxii Talons
    . Pteraxii Sterylizor Alpha: Flechette Blaster, Pteraxii Talons, Taser Goad

    Serberys Raiders [6 PL, 133pts]: Enhanced Data-Tether
    . 7x Serberys Raider: 7x Cavalry Sabre, 7x Clawed Limbs, 7x Galvanic Carbine
    . Serberys Raider Alpha: Archeo-revolver, Cavalry Sabre, Clawed Limbs, Galvanic Carbine

    ++ Total: [100 PL, 7CP, 1,997pts] ++


    You don't think it matters whether you play Gloryseeker where the winner is whoever destroys more PL worth of units counting CHARACTERS, VEHICLES and MONSTERS twice? or War of Attrition which is the same, except you don't count CHARACTERS, VEHICLES and MONSTERS twice when one army has 24 PL of non-frontline units of these types and the other has 41 PL of frontline units of these types and another 24 PL of non-frontline units of these types? That's the first objective card I found compared with the most similar objective card I found after drawing a few cards from the pile and the top two armies of the most recently uploaded tournament to 40kstats and it is crystal clear how imbalanced this system is. You might get an advantage playing 21 vs 33 but it's nowhere near the same level of the winner being determined by mission roll off and list-building more than anything else.
       
    Made in gb
    Longtime Dakkanaut




     the_scotsman wrote:
    Primarily, the main problem I have at this point is compared to other games I play, 40k feels incredibly un-interactive and incredibly just drop-dead instant deadly, and I think that impression is more based on 'a large fraction of your units basically only get to TRY to do one single thing before they die' than any actual 'how long does your army last in terms of turn-count.'


    This is the biggest problem for me too. 9th edition just makes it so easy to remove entire units in one go. Yes, terrain can help to mitigate alpha strikes but the problem remains that units are rarely able to withstand being attacked and those that can often do so only by stacking ridiculous defensive statlines and buffs to the point that regular units can't scratch them. There's not enough incremental advantage in 40k because the only way to interact with your opponent is to kill their stuff. Other wargames have concepts like suppression or some sort of working morale system, or positioning where you can sacrifice damage output on one turn for a superior position in the next. 40k has "you can't see these guys so they're safe" and "these guys are visible so they're dead if my opponent wants them to be".

    I always think back to an interview Gav Thorpe gave about the 3rd edition Wraithlord when he said the designers were worried it might be too powerful because it could kill up to 3 Space Marines in a single close combat phase! The average was a mighty 2 Space Marines. Nowadays it's not uncommon for single units to be able to kill 2 whole units each per round.
       
    Made in ca
    Longtime Dakkanaut





     Rhia_Stadtfeld wrote:
    I didn't actually realise the years and dates of editions till I looked last night, I /actually/ last probably played in about 04, but entered the hobby in around 97. (I feel old af now)

    With that in mind, given the amount of information on editions in here, how would you guys recommend I get back in?

    Play smaller scale games? Play what I know? Or just step back out again, It sounds as though unless you've been with it since the release of 9th, forget about it, as by the time I've got a handle on it we'll be in 10th


    Definitely play smaller games. IMHO, the best thing about 9th is the support for games of different sizes; it is a core rule, meaning it applies to all 3 ways to play, but I feel like it is particularly critical to the success of Crusade because the progression system is designed with escalation in mind, and game size support facilitates escalation.

    I would also start with Open play, because all of the stuff people have spent 3 pages (so far) doesn't apply unless you battle forge your army. Many of the folks who don't like 9th are folks who don't have the option of playing open because they can't find people who will play that way. If you have the option, it eliminates almost all CP and Strrat "Problems" (in quotes, because I personally like strats).
       
    Made in gb
    Ship's Officer





    Bristol (UK)

    Open Play still has strats and stuff, it just gives you the option to forgo those if you want.
    Not to mention that 40k without all those sorts of mechanics is nothing, like just the barest bones of a game.
       
    Made in us
    Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






    aphyon wrote:
    A legit opinion, but compared to 4th or 5th? Back then there were only three missions to play and one (Kill Points) was extremely harsh on some armies,


    That is not the mission options i remember
    kill points or unit kill value prior to that were a thing but there was also-
    .1- objective in each players deployment zone to defend
    .2-d3+2 objectives to take and hold
    .3-center objective(king of the hill)
    .4-move-able center objective(up to 6" per player turn)
    .5-table quarters (the quarter opposite was worth 2 VP and each of the others to the sides were worth 1(your own was worth zero to you)
    .6-over-run/breakout-playing from end to end VP for getting units into or keeping them out of the defenders back 24" zone (defender starts at the halfway point on the table).

    So that's 7 mission options of which 6 of them force players to move off of just gun-line style play especially when adequate terrain is on the table that blocks LOS.


    AKA:

    1 - "The Emperor's Tie" as it was called at the time - basically didnt matter unless one army got obliterated, in which case, congrats bro I guess you 'won by objectives'
    2 -3: The Two Good Ones
    4 - The one that only ever served the purpose of turning a one-sided game into 'technically a tie' because the side that didnt get obliterated didnt obliterate hard enough or have fast enough units that could carry the relic back into the DZ
    5-6 - I do not remember these being missions - maybe the table quarters one, but DEFINITELY one of the missions was ALWAYS just out-and-out "Kill Points by unit destroyed", AKA "just dont play with a mission at all".

    People defending 40k's PUG mission design prior to 8th ed will never not be ABSOLUTELY BONKERS to me. MAELSTROM got played as the de-facto best mission type in 7th. Draw The Cards And Hope You Get The Objectives You Already Control was better than the garbage that was the traditional PUG mission lists.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    Slipspace wrote:
     the_scotsman wrote:
    Primarily, the main problem I have at this point is compared to other games I play, 40k feels incredibly un-interactive and incredibly just drop-dead instant deadly, and I think that impression is more based on 'a large fraction of your units basically only get to TRY to do one single thing before they die' than any actual 'how long does your army last in terms of turn-count.'


    This is the biggest problem for me too. 9th edition just makes it so easy to remove entire units in one go. Yes, terrain can help to mitigate alpha strikes but the problem remains that units are rarely able to withstand being attacked and those that can often do so only by stacking ridiculous defensive statlines and buffs to the point that regular units can't scratch them. There's not enough incremental advantage in 40k because the only way to interact with your opponent is to kill their stuff. Other wargames have concepts like suppression or some sort of working morale system, or positioning where you can sacrifice damage output on one turn for a superior position in the next. 40k has "you can't see these guys so they're safe" and "these guys are visible so they're dead if my opponent wants them to be".

    I always think back to an interview Gav Thorpe gave about the 3rd edition Wraithlord when he said the designers were worried it might be too powerful because it could kill up to 3 Space Marines in a single close combat phase! The average was a mighty 2 Space Marines. Nowadays it's not uncommon for single units to be able to kill 2 whole units each per round.


    On one hand yes....but also, I play games where statistically your stuff is just as likely to die to just as much firepower as it dies in 40k, and it doesnt feel nearly as bad, idk.

    Like lets look for a quick example at age of sigmar.

    I'd say your average unit in age of sigmar PROBABLY dies about as quickly, turnswise, as your unit in 40k, the main two distinctions are generally

    1 - youre more likely to get to act with that unit in the turn that it gets destroyed, because if your opponent combo-wombos up 3 units that will take it down for certain, it's more likely to go:

    -your opponents first unit acts
    -your unit acts (maybe at reduced power)
    -later in the turn your opponents second two units act, finishing off your unit, WHICH DID GET TO AT LEAST DO SOMETHING

    2 - the MASSIVE reduction in range of shooting weaponry generally means youre able to use that basic fact of threat range to hold a unit out of harm's way if you want to preserve it for a later turn

    Heck, I play a game called Battlegroup where armored vehicles essentially have no 'hit points' - your opponent succeeds on a Penetration test against your tank, it's donezo, that's it. One shot one kill, and even infantry units in pretty good cover if they get hosed on by a heavy MG in a good position are just going to get absolutely shredded.

    But again, because it's not purely IGoUGo (in BG you have a limited number of orders, so you generally do not get to move with all your models on your turn) while co-ordinated strategy like in 40k is possible, it's less like you are taking all of your opponent's firepower on the chin just all at once, and you can also choose to couch some of your orders in 'ambush fire' and 'reserve move' orders that let you act during your opponent's next turn.

    This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/13 13:56:21


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

    -the_scotsman"

    -ERJAK 
       
    Made in at
    Discriminating Warrior





    Austria

    I remember 5th for not playing the default missions at all and using a different scoring system (Win/Draw/Los instead of 20:0 difference in objectives used in 7th and 8th)

    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 us
    Longtime Dakkanaut




    NE Ohio, USA

     kirotheavenger wrote:
    Open Play still has strats and stuff, it just gives you the option to forgo those if you want.


    Oh you can personally forgo "strats & stuff" in matched play.
    There's nothing mandating that I spend even a single cp on a strat. (my last game used Tallant for Anhilation a grand total of 3 times & nothing else. Not even a re-roll).
       
    Made in gb
    Ship's Officer





    Bristol (UK)

    Indeed, it's almost like Open Play is totally pointless and exists only so GW can say there's "three ways to play" and make the game sound like it'll suit anyone.
       
    Made in ie
    Ruthless Rafkin





     kirotheavenger wrote:
    Open Play still has strats and stuff, it just gives you the option to forgo those if you want.
    Not to mention that 40k without all those sorts of mechanics is nothing, like just the barest bones of a game.


    Thats why when learning the game its good to ignore all the (many) extraneous rules like strats, secondaries and house rule the terrain rules to something simpler. Better to learn the flow of the fundamentals of the game than chuck everything in all at once and slow everything down as people constantly refer back to and flick around codexes.

    Your first game should be about learning the order of phases, how they all work and the To Wound/Save/FnP/Damage Allocation Stuff. Then build up from there.


     
       
    Made in ca
    Longtime Dakkanaut





     kirotheavenger wrote:
    Indeed, it's almost like Open Play is totally pointless and exists only so GW can say there's "three ways to play" and make the game sound like it'll suit anyone.


    The handful of players on Dakka who swear by Open War would probably disagree.

    While it's true that there is nothing stopping you from battleforging an Open play army, it certainly isn't the default expectation of the system. And without battleforging, you lose access to all your BESPOKE strats, meaning only those in the core book apply.

    Separating deployment maps from mission objectives is another key feature of open play that has a profound impact on how the game plays and feels.

    And of course the biggest difference is the lack of secondaries- it's a total game changer.

    I don't think you're actually giving a whole heck of a lot of credit to Open play; the differences are actually pretty pronounced. It's true, of course, that some open players will select certain elements from other ways to play and add them in, but this does not change the fact that the system is significantly different if you play it out of the book as written. Just because some people choose to battleforge Open armies, this does not mean that GW pulled a fast one and there is no difference between one mode and another.

    This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/13 14:58:36


     
       
     
    Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
    Go to: