Switch Theme:

Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed  [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 dk
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker






 Peakab00 wrote:
How is anyone realistically supposed to know all the potential stats, relics, customs, special rules involved in an army?

Start with an army, you don't need to remember all relics and WL traits, just the one relic and WL trait you brought. Then you note down all the Stratagems you can use for your army and which phases they are used in and read through that list of Stratagems a few times and make a cheat sheet to help you remember. Then you can start changing your army, the units, WL traits and relics used in that army to slowly get used to more and more units and rules. By the time the next Ork codex rolls around you will have learned the codex by heart, even if there is a lot.

"CSM is an eighth edition codex. How is its internal balance relevant to ninth edition's?"
It's what GW wants CSM players to use in 9th, stop being obtuse. How about Drukhari and AdMech vs Death Guard and Necrons? The relative power imbalance between these at release and the rest of 40k rivals the BS of Matt Ward's dexes in 5th, 6th edition Craftworlds and the 7th edition post Decurion power spike. Imagine if GW had gone back and retracted all the rules from formations and detachments except for WL trait re-roll and ObSec on troops, nerfed a half-dozen psychic spells, grav and D weapons? Suddenly 7th isn't a hot mess. GW learned of the magic of errata in 8th, it's no longer something GW needs to be given credit for since it also comes with downsides for new players, which this thread is kind of about.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Not sure it adds much, but takes on TTT's video and their thoughts on possible solutions.

1. I feel having "one" stratagem per army is kind of reductive. By degree you could say you often see this competitively anyway, and if you had a more interesting pool of general stratagems it might work. But one seems kind of... boring. And must almost inevitably warp list building. I am however a big opponent of every special chapter having its own stratagem, because while I think I can see what its meant to do, it often just results in faction locking because you get X+Y+Z which is obviously better than A+B+C. Which is sort of a problem with the chapter tactic system anyway but still.

Undoubtedly a big cull on stratagems would simplify the game.

2. Picking a "deck" of stratagems... yeah, this is just the above but looser. People would all end up with the same handful of stratagems that you generally see in competitive gaming anyway. The game wouldn't be simpler - you'd still go through this learning and curating phase. You'd lose access to those "comes up 1 in 10 games" stratagems... and maybe that's enough. But I don't think this would improve the game.

3. Limits on stratagems. By degree I can sort of see this - i.e. a unit can only be effected by one stratagem a turn or something would put another nail in so-called "wombo combos". I don't hate this - and while it doesn't necesarilly make the game simpler to learn, it might reduce "feels bad" moments as someone breaks out various 3-5 to double a unit's damage output and fly across the table.

4.There's an argument you scrap the stratagems as exist today (but muh rerolls tho). You give each faction say 3-4 powerful faction-defining abilities and you can select one of these a turn. Somehow you'd need to make this a compelling rather than obvious choice - but still. We are effectively abandoning the whole resource side of command points, and it should theoretically be simpler.

5. One warlord? Hmmm... kind of disagree. I feel blinging out characters is good - because the generic characters have become so bland. Obviously this endless expansion of warlord traits and relics is by degree more noise, more book keeping - but equally its fun. I feel the problem is that the CP/Points economy is kind of obvious. It doesn't feel like a choice to bling out your characters - its either an obvious yes or an obvious no.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

Tyel wrote:
2. Picking a "deck" of stratagems... yeah, this is just the above but looser. People would all end up with the same handful of stratagems that you generally see in competitive gaming anyway. The game wouldn't be simpler - you'd still go through this learning and curating phase. You'd lose access to those "comes up 1 in 10 games" stratagems... and maybe that's enough. But I don't think this would improve the game.


I think it would tremendously improve the learning experience of facing a new army if they could just hand you the list of six or however many stratagems they've picked, and you could just scan through those and be done with it.

It's effectively a soft cull. All those weird random stratagems can still exist and be options for specific themes or builds (which I think is a good thing), but unless your opponent has specifically chosen them for the current battle, they're not relevant.

It would make it a bit easier to learn your own army as well, since while you still have to learn all your own stratagems to pick, once you've chosen your set you don't need to worry about the rest until after the game. No more 'Oh, I think I have a stratagem for this... [flips through pages]'.

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 Unit1126PLL wrote:
which may have something to do with why 4th is the edition I'd like to go back to


I don't recall a kit for carapace armor or hellguns.

But uh, 4th so Chaos 3.5? Yea. Do you really want to go into that codex? Chosen who are all sorcerers who automatically pass their psychic test?

Troops that are all terminators with slow and purposeful, and an aspiring that has an automatic minor power of reroll all hits. You may also have to take a leadership test to assault the unit among other things.

There's a reason people liked CSM 3.5 and it wasn't for it's simplicity.


   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
which may have something to do with why 4th is the edition I'd like to go back to


I don't recall a kit for carapace armor or hellguns.

But uh, 4th so Chaos 3.5? Yea. Do you really want to go into that codex? Chosen who are all sorcerers who automatically pass their psychic test?

Troops that are all terminators with slow and purposeful, and an aspiring that has an automatic minor power of reroll all hits. You may also have to take a leadership test to assault the unit among other things.

There's a reason people liked CSM 3.5 and it wasn't for it's simplicity.


I thought we were talking core rules and game design? 40k has never been balanced codex wise - my claim isn't "4th is the most balanced edition ever!" so arguing against that is just constructing a straw man.

As for the Carapace Armor and Hellguns kit, you must've forgotten these for the first half of 4th edition and these for the second half.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/16 16:18:40


 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





Watched the video.

I like their approach to the discussion- they seem reasonable. Not too much there that I haven't already heard from Dakkanauts, And in terms of whether or not agree or disagree, it's pretty much the same.

They didn't speak at all about game size or ways to play, and I think that it's very important to pay attention to those features of 9th in order to have a discussion that makes sense. The quality of this video would have doubled if the first words out of their mouths had been "Today, we're going to talk about whether or not 2k Matched play 40k games are too complex."

I also think that they need to watch their use of the generic, small s supplement. Since capital S Supplements do exist, a bit of attention to diction could facilitate better discourse. Calling a campaign book a campaign book, a supplement a supplement and a mission pack a mission pack is important, even though all of these things do fit the definition of generic, small s supplement.

Had I been involved in the production of the video, I would have edited out the part where the big-bearded guy forgot that 8th began with Indexes- it just undermines the credibility of anything else the guy says.

As for discussing their specific suggestions, like I said, similar enough to stuff discussed elsewhere on Dakka that I don't see the need. You've heard it all before, and you've also heard all my responses already.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I thought we were talking core rules and game design? 40k has never been balanced codex wise - my claim isn't "4th is the most balanced edition ever!" so arguing against that is just constructing a straw man.

As for the Carapace Armor and Hellguns kit, you must've forgotten these for the first half of 4th edition and these for the second half.


Err, well, you were tossing out an example of the Tank Commander, but the core rules of 4th are so far beyond wonky especially compared to 9th - hit and wound charts, scatter, barrages, facings hit from blast templates, your "size" and cover saves granted by terrain, upside-down BS & WS, mixed armor and allocating wounds, etc.

I did forget those kits, thanks. I was a poor boy back then.

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I thought we were talking core rules and game design? 40k has never been balanced codex wise - my claim isn't "4th is the most balanced edition ever!" so arguing against that is just constructing a straw man.

As for the Carapace Armor and Hellguns kit, you must've forgotten these for the first half of 4th edition and these for the second half.


Err, well, you were tossing out an example of the Tank Commander, but the core rules of 4th are so far beyond wonky especially compared to 9th - hit and wound charts, scatter, barrages, facings hit from blast templates, your "size" and cover saves granted by terrain, upside-down BS & WS, mixed armor and allocating wounds, etc.

I did forget those kits, thanks. I was a poor boy back then.


Yeah but the point is they were core rules. Once you had them figured out, you had them figured out.

Plus, there's the intuition factor. The more "realistic* (*within the setting, because this needs to be said)" a rule is, the easier it is to remember.
The WS hit chart was:
If your WS is the same, it's 4+.
If your WS is better, it's 3+, them still 4+.
If you WS is at least twice as good, it's 3+, them 5+.

The wound chart was:
If your S is the same as their T, it's 4+
If your S is higher than their T by 1, it's 3+
If your S is higher than their T by 2 or more, it's it's 2+
If you S is less than their T by 1, it's 5+
If your S is less than their T by 2 or more, it's 6+
If your S is less than half their toughness (rounded up) you can't wound them

This is literally the same number of variables as 9th with the thresholds moved around and only a single (rare in 4th!) entry removed:
If your S is the same as their T, it's 4+
If your S is higher (but not double!) than their T , it's 3+
If your S is equal to or higher than twice their T it's 2+
If you S is less than their T (But more than half!), it's 5+
If your S is equal to or less than half their T, it's 6+

Scatter and blast is intuitive. "Oh, blasts are explosions, which means an AOE, and when they miss, they land somewhere else, determined by d6" plus an arrow" - the arrow literally points the way. Barrages is just "ignore LOS" just like in 9th, though you did have to roll an extra d6 for scatter if you couldn't see the target (omg that's terrible to remember how did anyone cope!11!)

Facings hit from blast templates is just "the facing the firer is in". Oh, blasts where the hole wasn't on the target just hit the armor facing they happened to nick - which is intuitive ("the explosion hits where the explosion template hit"). The only wonky thing is that direct hits from barrage weapons hit Side (to reflect Top armor) which I remember to this day, but fair enough it's not automatically intuitive.

Size and cover is one of the things I would change about 4th to make it a more modern game, I'll grant this was irritating. It wasn't complicated, really, though - just bad. "There are 3 levels of terrain, and 3 sizes of unit. If they match up or if the unit is smaller, blocks LOS"

Mixed armor save rule was just "use the save of the majority of the models in the unit, until they are not the majority anymore". Simple and intuitive, if not altogether a GOOD rule.

Wound allocation was just "defender allocates wounds" except for Torrent of Fire, which means "any wounds that exceed the number of models in the target unit may be allocated by the attacker instead" which is also easy to remember (given that I remember it).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/16 17:14:14


 
   
Made in gb
Lit By the Flames of Prospero






 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah but the point is they were core rules. Once you had them figured out, you had them figured out.

Oh so it's ok if the rules are complex because eventually you'll get it. That's great. What if I never get it?

Plus, there's the intuition factor. The more "realistic* (*within the setting, because this needs to be said)" a rule is, the easier it is to remember.
The WS hit chart was:
If your WS is the same, it's 4+.
If your WS is better, it's 3+, them still 4+.
If you WS is at least twice as good, it's 3+, them 5+.

Now there's no chart and its more simple. I don't have to worry about what my opponent's WS is because I'm still going to hit the same unless they have an ability that makes it harder to hit. Hey BTW, 9th buffs and debuffs can only ever increase or decrease a roll by 1, which means you can always still hit and never get to a point where it is literally impossible to hit something. This means that we can have random fun things like 10 Guardsmen charging a Bloodthirster and by the grace of the God-Emperor, doing 1 damage before being obliterated into mulch. You know, like that really famous example of Ollanius Pious hurting Horus that little bit so the Emperor could kill Horus.

The wound chart was:
If your S is the same as their T, it's 4+
If your S is higher than their T by 1, it's 3+
If your S is higher than their T by 2 or more, it's it's 2+
If you S is less than their T by 1, it's 5+
If your S is less than their T by 2 or more, it's 6+
If your S is less than half their toughness (rounded up) you can't wound them

This is literally the same number of variables as 9th with the thresholds moved around and only a single (rare in 4th!) entry removed:
If your S is the same as their T, it's 4+
If your S is higher (but not double!) than their T , it's 3+
If your S is equal to or higher than twice their T it's 2+
If you S is less than their T (But more than half!), it's 5+
If your S is equal to or less than half their T, it's 6+

Ok, what's the problem here? If the opponent is weaker it's easier to kill them, if they're tougher it's harder.

Scatter and blast is intuitive. "Oh, blasts are explosions, which means an AOE, and when they miss, they land somewhere else, determined by d6" plus an arrow" - the arrow literally points the way. Barrages is just "ignore LOS" just like in 9th, though you did have to roll an extra d6 for scatter if you couldn't see the target (omg that's terrible to remember how did anyone cope!11!)

Facings hit from blast templates is just "the facing the firer is in". Oh, blasts where the hole wasn't on the target just hit the armor facing they happened to nick - which is intuitive ("the explosion hits where the explosion template hit"). The only wonky thing is that direct hits from barrage weapons hit Side (to reflect Top armor) which I remember to this day, but fair enough it's not automatically intuitive.

Blast templates suck. I hate them. It's the one thing I despise about 30k is the Blast templates. It is the most irritating and rage-inducing mechanic, especially against try-hards. "Oh a tiny bit of that model's base is under a sliver of the blast template, let me recount who gets hit because I just noticed that 6 models might be in a similar position". No. Get in the bin. Blasts and how they interact with terrain? Also trash. How my frag rocket can hit models on the hypothetical 8th floor of a building and models on the ground floor, I don't even know.
Their only use was as actual weapons.

Wound allocation was just "defender allocates wounds" except for Torrent of Fire, which means "any wounds that exceed the number of models in the target unit may be allocated by the attacker instead" which is also easy to remember (given that I remember it).

The closest models die is my favourite version of Wound Allocation as long as it also follows the "a model takes wounds until it dies then move onto another model". Allocating wounds to whatever model the owner wanted while keeping a whole deathstar alive sucked.
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 Daedalus81 wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I thought we were talking core rules and game design? 40k has never been balanced codex wise - my claim isn't "4th is the most balanced edition ever!" so arguing against that is just constructing a straw man.

As for the Carapace Armor and Hellguns kit, you must've forgotten these for the first half of 4th edition and these for the second half.


Err, well, you were tossing out an example of the Tank Commander, but the core rules of 4th are so far beyond wonky especially compared to 9th - hit and wound charts, scatter, barrages, facings hit from blast templates, your "size" and cover saves granted by terrain, upside-down BS & WS, mixed armor and allocating wounds, etc.

I did forget those kits, thanks. I was a poor boy back then.


There were also no sub-factions outside of some optional variant rules that came with upsides and downsides, no allies or allegiance abilities to keep track of, almost no special rules (USR bloat complaints usually come from 6th/7th, back in 4th there was one page of USRs for the whole game), no auras, almost no re-rolls, only one type of detachment, no CP/stratagems, no relics, no psychic phase, way fewer psykers/psychic powers, no "priests"/prayers, a tenth the number of redundant weapon stats...The core rules may have been bigger and wonkier but the army books were way more straightforward.

As to WS/BS it's only "upside down" by comparison to 8th/9th. In an ideal universe high rolls would be good and high stats would be good because those are more intuitive than saying "no, low stats are good" like in 8th/9th or "no, low rolls are good" like in Infinity, but if you want to actually do that you either need a lookup table (ex. 3rd-7th 40k), to put the roll's target number on the enemy unit rather than on the attacking unit (ex. Battlefleet Gothic), or to implement the whole thing as roll + stat v. target number (ex. Warmachine). Old 40k's approach isn't perfect, no, but I don't think it's any worse than the current "low stats good!" approach; once you get over the initial "ew" reaction and get used to it they're pretty much the same.

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 us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






If the function of a stat is the number i need to roll over on the dice just give me that number as the stat pretty please with a cherry on top do not make me look up what the number means on a table I hate every system that does this with an irrational passion.

High Numbers Good < Displaying The Information To Me In An Instantly Understandable Fashion.

Also just indiciative of the massive shooting bias in the rules structure of 3rd ed-7th ed.

Shooting? Your BS = your hit roll.

melee? Your hit roll is impacted by your opponents' stats as well.

Shooting? You get to shoot all your units uninterrupted at your opponent.

Melee? Your opponent might get to hit you, on your turn, BEFORE you've attacked them! Fun!

Shooting? The strength of your gun is fixed baby!

Melee? The strength of your weapon, which will always cost the same regardless of who's wielding it cus reasons, is dependent on your unit's strength stat! Powerfists at S6 cost the same as powerfists at S8, feth you!

shooting? Deep strike in and GO TO TOWN baby not even a modifier for dropping in from the sky and precisely shooting a gun!

Melee? Don't even THINK about doing ANYTHING until your opponent has had at least a turn to shoot you with their entire army!

"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 us
Longtime Dakkanaut




NE Ohio, USA

 Gert wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah but the point is they were core rules. Once you had them figured out, you had them figured out.

Oh so it's ok if the rules are complex because eventually you'll get it. That's great. What if I never get it?.


You admit this isn't the game for you & you move on to something that is.

Or

You persist in playing anyways, constantly looking up the same rules, making errors, etc.

I mean, how do you handle any other thing in your life where you discover that you lack (and apparently always will lack) the required skill?
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




 Blackie wrote:
Yeah, another thing I can't understand is why some people feel the need to know everything about everything since the beginning.


Because GW's internal balancing is horrible and people don't to waste money on underpowered or unplayable minis.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
ccs wrote:
You admit this isn't the game for you & you move on to something that is.


The thing is, even if you *can* get an encyclopedic knowledge of the rules, you shouldn't, because there are better games out there for that amount of mental effort input.

40k is just lurching along between editions, carried on by its own momentum, and it remains an atrocious game at every step.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/16 18:47:47


 
   
Made in gb
Lit By the Flames of Prospero






ccs wrote:

You admit this isn't the game for you & you move on to something that is.

Or

You persist in playing anyways, constantly looking up the same rules, making errors, etc.

I mean, how do you handle any other thing in your life where you discover that you lack (and apparently always will lack) the required skill?

Personally, I think that telling someone to find a new game because they don't get every single rule in the book is just a bit silly really. I still think there are rules interactions in both the 30k and 40k systems that are dumb and that I don't understand, should I just give up and find something else? Or should I just accept that learning every single rule is stupid and a bad expectation of someone?
Telling someone "oh yeah the rules are complex but you'll get them eventually" is a pretty stupid thing to do as well.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/16 18:51:05


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Hecaton wrote:

Because GW's internal balancing is horrible and people don't to waste money on underpowered or unplayable minis.


I actually find it to be quite good with 9th edition books so far barring a very small handful of too good units ( Raiders, Vahl, some buggies, some Skitari ).

   
Made in us
I'll Be Back




I started with 7th and 9th seems way easier to me. Looking at older rules, they seem 100x more complicated. Facings, armor values, that weird chart where you compare attacker/defender WS instead of a simple 3+ type system. I can't imagine playing anything before 8th now. Most of the rules are on the datasheets which I always have a .html of on my phone while playing. Combined with the "Stratagems by Phase" section of wahapedia, it's never been simpler to have every rule for every army in my hand while playing. At my FLG I play crusade games with fluffy army lists mostly, so no tournaments for me.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/16 19:30:18


 
   
Made in es
[DCM]
Secret Inquisitorial Eldar Xenexecutor






your mind

Unit has the goods on this edition imho. Too gamey… as for older editions seeming more complicated, that seems to be for people who like the card gamey whombocombos of the current style of play, and these seem to be people who came from mtg and video games whereas thirty years ago we came from chess and rpgs like advanced d and d… facings, templates, initiative, movements that weren’t random but that were based on race and unit type as one would expect from gams like d and which aimed to create realistic fantasy environments that took advantage of real work experience and intuition. Current iterations of the game are apparently not trying to do that, and seem to appeal to people who want to play games more than forge narratives. Anyways. Not for me…

   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka







 Gert wrote:
Now there's no chart and its more simple. I don't have to worry about what my opponent's WS is because I'm still going to hit the same unless they have an ability that makes it harder to hit.


Simple =/= good, especially where verisimilitude is concerned.

Imagine, if you will, a Dark Eldar gladatorial arena. Two groups of fighters are presented...

Group A includes an Imperial Guardsman, an Eldar Guardian Defender, a Termagant, and a Fire Warrior. Off the top of my head (and without looking things up, as I'm tired), in 40k pre-8th these were all WS3. They may feature differences in other stats related to H2H, but in terms of basic skill they're on par. We'd imagine they'd each hit each other 50% of the time.

Group B features some slightly tougher opponents - Autarch, Space Marine Captain, Chaos Lord, Hive Tyrant, etc. Without looking the WS up, they're all in roughly the same ballpark, with a much higher WS than Group A. For arguments sake, let's say WS7. Again, Group B hits each other 50% of the time.

If an individual from A fights an individual from B, what we know about them tells us this - A should be outmatched, they should find it tougher to hit their opponent than if they were fighting someone else from group A. Conversely, our combatant from group B should find it much easier to hit our person from group A than if they were fighting someone of comparable skill from group B.

In any edition of 40k up to 8th, this was reflected by the WS chart. In theory, each fighter from A fighting someone from A hits on a 4+; the same is true of someone from B fighting someone from B. If someone from A fights someone from B, A now needs a 5+ to hit, while B is hitting on a 3+ in return. This fits with the expectations that the setting gives us - and, frankly, looking values up on a X vs Y table does not take more than a few seconds.

What we see now is that regardless of whether a grot is fighting a Guardsman, a Genestealer, or Ragnar freakin' Blackmane, they'll hit with the same frequency, regardless of how good we're expected to think their opponents are in H2H. Equally, Ragnar finds it no more difficult to hit Logan Grimnar or Commander Dante in H2H than he does a grot, despite them both being famed H2H fighters. This breaks our understanding of the setting, in the name of maybe saving a few seconds here or there.

As an aside, I'd've liked to see BS opposed by an Evasion stat, rather than be a flat 7-BS roll - if you're not going to compare it to something, then I'm less fussed about switching from a stat to a Y+ representation.

2021 Plog - Here we go again... - my fifth attempt at a Dakka PLOG

My [url=https://pileofpotential.com/dysartes]Pile of Potential[/url - updates ongoing...

Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.


 Kanluwen wrote:
This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.

Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army... 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Spoiler:
 Dysartes wrote:
 Gert wrote:
Now there's no chart and its more simple. I don't have to worry about what my opponent's WS is because I'm still going to hit the same unless they have an ability that makes it harder to hit.


Simple =/= good, especially where verisimilitude is concerned.

Imagine, if you will, a Dark Eldar gladatorial arena. Two groups of fighters are presented...

Group A includes an Imperial Guardsman, an Eldar Guardian Defender, a Termagant, and a Fire Warrior. Off the top of my head (and without looking things up, as I'm tired), in 40k pre-8th these were all WS3. They may feature differences in other stats related to H2H, but in terms of basic skill they're on par. We'd imagine they'd each hit each other 50% of the time.

Group B features some slightly tougher opponents - Autarch, Space Marine Captain, Chaos Lord, Hive Tyrant, etc. Without looking the WS up, they're all in roughly the same ballpark, with a much higher WS than Group A. For arguments sake, let's say WS7. Again, Group B hits each other 50% of the time.

If an individual from A fights an individual from B, what we know about them tells us this - A should be outmatched, they should find it tougher to hit their opponent than if they were fighting someone else from group A. Conversely, our combatant from group B should find it much easier to hit our person from group A than if they were fighting someone of comparable skill from group B.

In any edition of 40k up to 8th, this was reflected by the WS chart. In theory, each fighter from A fighting someone from A hits on a 4+; the same is true of someone from B fighting someone from B. If someone from A fights someone from B, A now needs a 5+ to hit, while B is hitting on a 3+ in return. This fits with the expectations that the setting gives us - and, frankly, looking values up on a X vs Y table does not take more than a few seconds.

What we see now is that regardless of whether a grot is fighting a Guardsman, a Genestealer, or Ragnar freakin' Blackmane, they'll hit with the same frequency, regardless of how good we're expected to think their opponents are in H2H. Equally, Ragnar finds it no more difficult to hit Logan Grimnar or Commander Dante in H2H than he does a grot, despite them both being famed H2H fighters. This breaks our understanding of the setting, in the name of maybe saving a few seconds here or there.

As an aside, I'd've liked to see BS opposed by an Evasion stat, rather than be a flat 7-BS roll - if you're not going to compare it to something, then I'm less fussed about switching from a stat to a Y+ representation.


I memorized that table quite well. The part you're missing is how difficult it makes balancing units across a huge array of targets. The current system is far preferable in that regard.

   
Made in es
[DCM]
Secret Inquisitorial Eldar Xenexecutor






your mind

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Spoiler:
 Dysartes wrote:
 Gert wrote:
Now there's no chart and its more simple. I don't have to worry about what my opponent's WS is because I'm still going to hit the same unless they have an ability that makes it harder to hit.


Simple =/= good, especially where verisimilitude is concerned.

Imagine, if you will, a Dark Eldar gladatorial arena. Two groups of fighters are presented...

Group A includes an Imperial Guardsman, an Eldar Guardian Defender, a Termagant, and a Fire Warrior. Off the top of my head (and without looking things up, as I'm tired), in 40k pre-8th these were all WS3. They may feature differences in other stats related to H2H, but in terms of basic skill they're on par. We'd imagine they'd each hit each other 50% of the time.

Group B features some slightly tougher opponents - Autarch, Space Marine Captain, Chaos Lord, Hive Tyrant, etc. Without looking the WS up, they're all in roughly the same ballpark, with a much higher WS than Group A. For arguments sake, let's say WS7. Again, Group B hits each other 50% of the time.

If an individual from A fights an individual from B, what we know about them tells us this - A should be outmatched, they should find it tougher to hit their opponent than if they were fighting someone else from group A. Conversely, our combatant from group B should find it much easier to hit our person from group A than if they were fighting someone of comparable skill from group B.

In any edition of 40k up to 8th, this was reflected by the WS chart. In theory, each fighter from A fighting someone from A hits on a 4+; the same is true of someone from B fighting someone from B. If someone from A fights someone from B, A now needs a 5+ to hit, while B is hitting on a 3+ in return. This fits with the expectations that the setting gives us - and, frankly, looking values up on a X vs Y table does not take more than a few seconds.

What we see now is that regardless of whether a grot is fighting a Guardsman, a Genestealer, or Ragnar freakin' Blackmane, they'll hit with the same frequency, regardless of how good we're expected to think their opponents are in H2H. Equally, Ragnar finds it no more difficult to hit Logan Grimnar or Commander Dante in H2H than he does a grot, despite them both being famed H2H fighters. This breaks our understanding of the setting, in the name of maybe saving a few seconds here or there.

As an aside, I'd've liked to see BS opposed by an Evasion stat, rather than be a flat 7-BS roll - if you're not going to compare it to something, then I'm less fussed about switching from a stat to a Y+ representation.


I memorized that table quite well. The part you're missing is how difficult it makes balancing units across a huge array of targets. The current system is far preferable in that regard.

What? Balance against a huge array of targets? Now there is no balance at all… units hit with the same frequency regardless of who or what is on the other side. How is that balanced? I mean, can a single thing balance, against what? It is just shallow… Preferable? For who? Again, it is as if the models are cards with numbers printed on them that tell us what the cards do… o, wait, that is exactly what they are. Why buy models at all? O, of course, to be able to use the cards…

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/16 20:17:18


   
Made in us
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader





Are... are models from older editions not cards with numbers printed on them that tell us what the cards do?

Like, it's hard for me to understand the thought process of reading the stat of WS7 and being like "oh wow, so good! not a card!" and reading the stat of WS2+ and being like "terrible! Disgusting! just a card!"
   
Made in es
[DCM]
Secret Inquisitorial Eldar Xenexecutor






your mind

No. And, cannot understand? Read again.

Copied from another thread…
The_Real_Chris wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:
Now that 9th is 'everything infantry and vehicles alike just explodes instantly' that enjoyment is gone again


But if they didn't the game would take forever. I think of my unit as cards in a CCG so have little attachment and pack them off on suicidal tasks.


Note the interest in short games, so there can be more of them I guess… not appealing to me, coming from d and d and chess, either of which might take entire afternoons… I do not come from mtg with the expectation that many card games will be played during a shorter period. And I am attached to my units and feel invested in their on table outcomes, cuz they are my dudes, not chit markers for abstractions.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/09/16 20:36:49


   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




 Daedalus81 wrote:
I actually find it to be quite good with 9th edition books so far barring a very small handful of too good units ( Raiders, Vahl, some buggies, some Skitari ).


Your judgment is poor then.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






Rihgu wrote:
Are... are models from older editions not cards with numbers printed on them that tell us what the cards do?

Like, it's hard for me to understand the thought process of reading the stat of WS7 and being like "oh wow, so good! not a card!" and reading the stat of WS2+ and being like "terrible! Disgusting! just a card!"


Where arguing off into the weeds here, but objectively the old weapon chart poses the player with many different possible dice rolls for both themselves and their opponent depending on the relative differences in skills. Granted, the old chart was limited to hitting on a 3+, 4+ or 5+ (no 2+'s or 6+'s), but the relative difference in WS's made for some very different outcomes. Having WS5 vs WS6 vs WS7+ all translate into tangible differences in die roll outcomes depending on who you're fighting.

Now all of that is effectively 2+ and you need to compensate by having a bajillion re-roll triggers (which takes more time for sure) in order stratify the results further.

Want a better 40K?
Check out ProHammer: Classic - An Awesomely Unified Ruleset for 3rd - 7th Edition 40K... for retro 40k feels!
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 jeff white wrote:
What? Balance against a huge array of targets? Now there is no balance at all… units hit with the same frequency regardless of who or what is on the other side. How is that balanced? I mean, can a single thing balance, against what? It is just shallow… Preferable? For who? Again, it is as if the models are cards with numbers printed on them that tell us what the cards do… o, wait, that is exactly what they are. Why buy models at all? O, of course, to be able to use the cards…


Balanced, because you can take Orks against Eldar or Marines or IG and they perform the same. You don't suddenly skew your units, because you wind up facing a different army who also happens to go first, because their strategy rating is higher.

Who is it preferable to when you charge a daemon prince and always fight after it? Or when the basic space marine can't hope to hit it on better than a 5 ( 4s for 5th )? Is it because it makes you feel better to some have somehow "outmaneuvered" your opponent by standing still and taking a charge?

It definitely isn't "selecting cards" when you pick Eldar for their high initiative and bring melee units to overrun your opponent, right?

Excuse the expression, but you think 'your gak don't stink' and you'll happily paint anything else as "cards", but it's a crap argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hecaton wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
I actually find it to be quite good with 9th edition books so far barring a very small handful of too good units ( Raiders, Vahl, some buggies, some Skitari ).


Your judgment is poor then.


As is yours! Woo hoo!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/16 21:05:38


   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





I love how so many posters in here will try to make a counter-argument, but miss the point and the target completely, while also making a wholly different argument.

To list building: If you are a new player getting into the game near the end of an edition (or perhaps, let's say, in the last year of an edition) it is unreasonable for you to know about the HISTORY of the faction rules you're getting into. In the case of Deathwatch, I would say it's reasonable to look at the 8th edition codex and, despite someone saying 'they might get updated in 9th edition', you should be able to make an army that operates the way that fits your playstyle with models you think are cool. Then, if a 9th edition Codex does come out and changes how the army operates so that your army is invalidated in some way, THAT IS A FAILURE OF THE RULES WRITERS, NOT a failure of the customer. Saying it is a failure of the customer for not knowing that their chosen faction has gone through a variety of iterations, each different from the last, is called "victim blaming" and is generally not a great thing to do.

On Complexity and Complication: I know there's a difference between the definition and I can't be arsed to keep them straight, but let's all just get on the same page here: 9th edition is indeed complicated. The question is whether it is more or less complicated than any previous edition, and whether or not that is a failing of the rules writers. In my opinion, having played since 4th edition, 9th edition IS THE MOST COMPLICATED ITERATION ---I--- HAVE PLAYED. I put that in caps to be clear, it may not be the most complicated version YOU have played, and maybe the rules jive with YOU better than they do for ME. Does that mean I'm in some way deficient? That's up to your opinion, but of course, being an ego-driven human being, I'm going to stand my ground and claim that the game developers have created an edition that is too complicated for MY LIKING, and it's very clear that I'm not alone in that opinion. It's a topic that's gotten enough attention that Tabletop Tactics, WintersSEO, and several others have made videos and articles on them, each hoping for some form of change and, generally, a return to ACCESSIBILITY. That is not necessarily to say that the game should become less Complicated, but that it should be MORE ACCESSIBLE to new players than it currently is.

That is my stance when it comes to the Complication of 9th edition. By adding SO many stratagems, army rules, gotcha-moments, and few restrictions on using those things, Matched Play 9th edition is too Complicated and not Accessible enough.

On adding invisible rules to models: There was an example of a Leman Russ having a bunch of extra command points added to it, and another poster immediately came back with "Uh, you've wasted a bunch of command points on a single unit for a single-turn of benefit". Again, you took a shot that was at a totally different target. I believe that's called a "strawman argument" or something, I'm not sure. Either way, the point is that the game is currently RIFE with rules that give invisible benefits to models. In fact, in the current edition, it is very normal for a person to spend 4-5 command points before the game starts to cherry pick a VARIETY of warlord traits and relics to place across their army. In fact, some of the relics and warlord traits can go on models that wouldn't typically be selected to be your Warlord. Invisible traits, auras, weapons, and other options that you can select that aren't represented by a physical change to the model add complication to the game and require EXPLANATION and MEMORIZATION, lest you get caught with your pants down against a weapon that you can't quickly identify. This makes it harder for new players to get into the game, which is what the point was. Saying you 'wasted command points' is a moot point, because we're not talking about tournament play where every decision must be the most efficient possible, we are talking about the majority of games and players, which are typically not concerned with perfect efficiency of command point use. I, as a player, may want to super-charge my Leman Russ with invisible rules, but this also means I have to spend a lot of time before the game even begins explaining to my opponent what those upgrades do, as a GOOD SPORT.

For the longest time, there was a MASSIVE incentive in local gaming clubs, and especially from GW themselves, to follow WYSIWYG. This is harder than ever for many characters that may look like they're carrying a regular chainsword or power sword, but are in fact carrying the BLADE OF FIERY BENEDICTION OF DEATH or somecrap. Add to this rules like 'Chief Apothecary' or 'Chief Librarian' that require you to spend points on models to upgrade them, but are not represented by any bit (or are not required to be represented by any bit) and you have layered rules now that can affect multiple models within your army that, if you are a good sport, require more and more explanation.

These are some of the issues that are making 9th edition Complicated and Inaccessible to players new and old. Like in the Tabletop Tactics video, there were other editions that were complicated, perhaps moreso or less so than currently, but the fact that we jumped from the beginning of 8th, which was a streamlined experience with Indexes, to only one edition later with 9th and we are losing returning players based on the sheer stack of rules that they have to swallow, is just too fast. Perhaps if they added some of the layered rules later on, like in 10th edition or even 11th edition, and gave us a more gradual development of the game, things would be better, but the *complicatening* was exponential, and here we have the failure.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




NE Ohio, USA

 Gert wrote:
ccs wrote:

You admit this isn't the game for you & you move on to something that is.

Or

You persist in playing anyways, constantly looking up the same rules, making errors, etc.

I mean, how do you handle any other thing in your life where you discover that you lack (and apparently always will lack) the required skill?

Personally, I think that telling someone to find a new game because they don't get every single rule in the book is just a bit silly really. I still think there are rules interactions in both the 30k and 40k systems that are dumb and that I don't understand, should I just give up and find something else? Or should I just accept that learning every single rule is stupid and a bad expectation of someone?
Telling someone "oh yeah the rules are complex but you'll get them eventually" is a pretty stupid thing to do as well.


Oh, my bad, you were just bitching about failing to "get" ALL of 40k - the BRB, each campaign suppliment, every codex (wether or not you actually play the army yourself) & every strat WL trait, relic ever printed, etc etc.
I mistook you for wondering about not understanding how to play the actual game.

But this provides an answer as well. If any of you actually think you need to know ALL[i][u] of it? This isn't the game for you.
   
Made in gb
Lit By the Flames of Prospero






Spoiler:
drbored wrote:
On Complexity and Complication: I know there's a difference between the definition and I can't be arsed to keep them straight, but let's all just get on the same page here: 9th edition is indeed complicated. The question is whether it is more or less complicated than any previous edition, and whether or not that is a failing of the rules writers. In my opinion, having played since 4th edition, 9th edition IS THE MOST COMPLICATED ITERATION ---I--- HAVE PLAYED. I put that in caps to be clear, it may not be the most complicated version YOU have played, and maybe the rules jive with YOU better than they do for ME. Does that mean I'm in some way deficient? That's up to your opinion, but of course, being an ego-driven human being, I'm going to stand my ground and claim that the game developers have created an edition that is too complicated for MY LIKING, and it's very clear that I'm not alone in that opinion. It's a topic that's gotten enough attention that Tabletop Tactics, WintersSEO, and several others have made videos and articles on them, each hoping for some form of change and, generally, a return to ACCESSIBILITY. That is not necessarily to say that the game should become less Complicated, but that it should be MORE ACCESSIBLE to new players than it currently is.

And yet people complained non-stop about how 8th had oversimplified 40k and ruined it by taking away options X, Y, and Z. I'm not saying it's anyone's fault in particular but I think there needs to be some retrospective here when people who complain about 9th being complicated also complained about 8th being too simple.

Spoiler:
That is my stance when it comes to the Complication of 9th edition. By adding SO many stratagems, army rules, gotcha-moments, and few restrictions on using those things, Matched Play 9th edition is too Complicated and not Accessible enough.

I mean every other Edition of 40k has the exact same things though. Stupid powerful unit upgrades, certain broken formations, the ability to spam relics on Characters. People keep acting like 9th is the only Edition where things happen in the game. Does anyone remember T'au firing their entire army in chain overwatches? Or Wraithguard getting Strength D flamers and being troops if you played Iyanden? Or Daemon factories that made games slowed to the point of insanity? 9th is no more broken than any other Edition I've played.

Spoiler:
On adding invisible rules to models: There was an example of a Leman Russ having a bunch of extra command points added to it, and another poster immediately came back with "Uh, you've wasted a bunch of command points on a single unit for a single-turn of benefit". Again, you took a shot that was at a totally different target. I believe that's called a "strawman argument" or something, I'm not sure. Either way, the point is that the game is currently RIFE with rules that give invisible benefits to models. In fact, in the current edition, it is very normal for a person to spend 4-5 command points before the game starts to cherry pick a VARIETY of warlord traits and relics to place across their army. In fact, some of the relics and warlord traits can go on models that wouldn't typically be selected to be your Warlord. Invisible traits, auras, weapons, and other options that you can select that aren't represented by a physical change to the model add complication to the game and require EXPLANATION and MEMORIZATION, lest you get caught with your pants down against a weapon that you can't quickly identify. This makes it harder for new players to get into the game, which is what the point was. Saying you 'wasted command points' is a moot point, because we're not talking about tournament play where every decision must be the most efficient possible, we are talking about the majority of games and players, which are typically not concerned with perfect efficiency of command point use. I, as a player, may want to super-charge my Leman Russ with invisible rules, but this also means I have to spend a lot of time before the game even begins explaining to my opponent what those upgrades do, as a GOOD SPORT.

Hi yeah, that was me responding to Unit. There was more than one point I made in that specific post and I'm disappointed to see you focussed on one, the shortest one might I add. Anyway onto you.
Have you got any evidence to support the claim that it's "normal" to spend 1/3 of your CP before the game begins?
As for invisible options, you do know that any relics/warlord traits/psychic powers are supposed to be recorded right? And that hiding such information from your opponent is cheating/bad sportsmanship?
And sorry, you have to spend "a lot of time explaining" that you're choosing to use 4 different Strategems on a single unit? That's literally your fault for doing that. You chose to put 4 Strategems on that unit, the game didn't force you to. If you can't effectively communicate then that is very much a you problem.

There's way too much rage post in this to answer it properly but the last thing I'm going to say is that you have the Codex in front of you. You don't need to memorise every single rule because they are literally in front of your face. It really doesn't take long to say "I'm using Vengeance of Lost Cadia which gives me rerolls to wound against Chaos stuff". Hell, this would even be shorter to say because you're only going to use that Strategem against a Chaos army anyway, so it would more like "I'm using this Strat that gives me rerolls to wound against your army".
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

9th has become too convulated for his own good that cannot be argueed agaisnt.

But as an outsider I cannot really see how older editions were better in that regard. Go read old battle reports, or lists, or tacticas. They were full of usin psychic powers, special characters, this regimental doctrine or that chapter tactic, or using this relic to make your demon prince have a lash that can move my models and cannot be targeted and this and that magical object that has this special effect.

People is kidding themselves if anybody believes that at any point in his story warhammer competitive was about basic units with their basic profiles. It has always been about combos. Now, the combos are just more obvious for everybody, specially with the ease of access to internet and netlisting. Stratagems are the only thing thats 100% "new stuff". Everything else, psychic powers, special rules, subfaction rules, warlord traits, relics, have always existed in the same capacity or even worse.

For example I can understand much better 8th and 9th lists and how they play because I have played those editions 100 times more than older editions where I cannot by the love of my remember the differente between 5 USR that are basically the same but no (I have the same problem with Infinity, I hate USR in datasheets that reference other books or pages. Just give me the rules in the unit entry damm you!). And I believe thats the problem many people have here.

As someone without a horse here, I believe you are all being extremely dishonest.

Warhammer 40k has always been a extremely complicated mess with a shallow gameplay. I mean I like it but thats the truth. And I , right now, prefer going back to older edition and playing with friends in a friendly manner but back in the day (i was more of a fantasy player) I remember the excruciating experience that was playing in a warhammer tournament. Nobody knew how most rules played, the amount of bickering and arguing and bad faith was insane. At least all of that was removed with 8th and thats the thing that actually kept me engaged this time.

In all of my tournaments of 8th and 9th (And I have attended dozens of them, from 12 little man store tournaments to 100-200 players one) I have yet to see a serious rule argument. In older editions you could not have a friendly game without one, for lack of faqs, or clarity, or how badly worded many rules were.

EDIT: Actually, going for stratagems, 9th has been better in that regard with 8th. You have less combos, many stratagems are only usable for a unit so they are more of special rules with cost attached, etc... The gameplay is the same, better, but the same, so if you don't like stratagems from 8th you wont like them in 9th, but thats not something that has gotten worse.

My biggest problem with warhammer and my enjoyemend for it right now is the lethality of the game. Something I like about LOTR is that when two shieldwalls clash, they keep going for turn after turn. Normally you have breachs in some places and it becomes a game of pushing were your opponent is weaker or trying to out manouver it while your shieldwall endures. Of course you have games that become blood baths because Morgoth was thirsty and your or yours opponent (or both!) had hot dice but they are the minority and always extremely fun.

This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2021/09/16 21:51:45


 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
Lit By the Flames of Prospero






ccs wrote:
Oh, my bad, you were just bitching about failing to "get" ALL of 40k - the BRB, each campaign suppliment, every codex (wether or not you actually play the army yourself) & every strat WL trait, relic ever printed, etc etc.
I mistook you for wondering about not understanding how to play the actual game.

First of all, excuse you. I don't recall using crass language with you so I'd expect the same in return.
Second of all, Unit was complaining about Relics and Strategems, as well as wargear identification, then suddenly we're talking about core rules with a stupid statement of
 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Yeah but the point is they were core rules. Once you had them figured out, you had them figured out.

What exactly does that even mean?

But this provides an answer as well. If any of you actually think you need to know ALL[i][u] of it? This isn't the game for you.

Show me where I said that. In any of my posts.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: