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 es
[DCM]
Secret Inquisitorial Eldar Xenexecutor






your mind

Listening to a favorite long-running and quite popular hobby podcast yesterday, I was struck by how negative one of the hosts was specifically about 9th edition 40K. This, coupled with recent entries from (many relatively influential) others in other media (e.g. as discussed in this thread https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/800753.page), has me wondering: Has 40K peaked? Which way forward for this system?
Some possible questions include:
  • Should 40K 'evolve' into something radically different from its original design, perhaps incorporating unit-level I-go-you-go mechanics using activation points or other means for alternating actions instead of army-level turns?

  • Should GW double-down on command points (something about which the hosts of the aforementioned podcast were especially wary) or dispense with them in favor of something else or nothing like them at all?

  • What about the cards, the ways that units are costed, the constant updates requiring new book purchases and now subscription services and so on - is there a way forward that can systematically improve the game and broader yet the hobby in general?

  • Or, should 40K return to its roots? RT? 2nd ed? 3rd? Vehicle facings and blast templates and greater "realism" in the sense of a detachment-level fantasy-sci-fi battlefield simulation? What about standard weapon profiles and abilities available to all or many races, e.g. orks using bolt guns and eldar with parrying powerswords? Should these be brought back?

  • Or, is there a way for GW to offer layers of complexity, with basic rules on the model of 8th's stripped-down rules or one-page 40K, and with different layers of rules offered that can be added on as players wish, adding realism and detail at the cost of time and involvement, with stripped-down rules perhaps better suited to larger games with high-point value forces that play relatively quickly, and with increasingly complex rules perhaps best suited to smaller games with fewer units all the way down to what might effectively be a model-based squad-level role playing game, all within the covers of a 40K set of rulebooks? Could such a consistent system be possible? Would this represent progress?


  • Ultmately, the feeling that I got from listening to those hosts of that podcast was that 40K had peaked, and that some rather radical revisions might be necessary in order for these longstanding hobbyists to become interested in engaging with the system on a regular basis, again.

    Which way, 40K? Forward? Back? Wondering what any and all have to say about this...



    This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/11 13:30:45


       
    Made in ca
    Regular Dakkanaut





    Good questions Jeff.

    I think 40k design is a total mess and not really salvageable without a fundamental rewrite of the entire rules.

    For me personally I wish GW would bring back epic40k as the "lethality" of 40k is best represented using a smaller miniature scale to demonstrate the fact that 40k games essentially mimic the scale of battletech (infantry to sub-orbital airspace) on a tiny board using 28mm models. That just flat out doesn't work.

    When it comes to the print media. To repeat myself from another thread. I am frankly embarrassed to own printed GW materials. The rushed nature and poor editing of their printed product makes me feel ashamed to ever have purchased it. I cannot say the same, at all, about Osprey's or Warlord Games printed product.

    The one ray of sunshine is that we are really enjoying the new kill team! The compendium fiasco is an unfortunate wart (see above regarding trash print media). But the core rules are a great interactive system.

    The TLDR for me is: at 28mm 40k doesn't work anymore. And it will not unless it is completely rewritten from the ground up.

    This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/11 13:36:24


     
       
    Made in au
    Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






    Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

    Thanks Jeff. Was looking for an excuse to post this recent video that Winters put up:




    Essentially it's a talk about accessibility, and what the changes between 8th and 9th have brought. It's also a talk about how 9th is basically "Tournament Edition", something I've been saying since 9th first came about, and the good and bad sides of such a system.

     jeff white wrote:
    What about the cards, the ways that units are costed, the constant updates requiring new book purchases and now subscription services and so on - is there a way forward that can systematically improve the game and broader yet the hobby in general?
    For my own part, I'm wary that GW are so in love with their "streaming service" that even unit cards are something that will go away. Why spend money producing cards when you can put all that stuff behind a monthly pay wall?

    This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/09/11 13:47:52


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

     
       
    Made in gb
    Lit By the Flames of Prospero






    9th is harder to pick up than 8th IMO but I've also just been enjoying it anyway but that is likely more down to the fact that I've just stopped caring about a lot of it. I don't have a strong grasp of list building, army building, tactics, or Strategems so I just use what feels fun or thematic. If I lose a game but my Raider drifted around a corner and tanked a Lokhust Heavy Destroyer shot then zapped it out of existence with a Dark Lance, then I'm happy.
       
    Made in es
    [DCM]
    Secret Inquisitorial Eldar Xenexecutor






    your mind

    H.B.M.C. - that Winters video was on the mark, thanks for that! His ideas 'if he were writing 10th edition' answer to my question above about the layering of complexity to allow for simple accessibility with additional constraints that can be added in as hobbyists grow in sophistication, with their collections, and so on.
    In reply to your concerns about putting everything behind a paywall, yes, I share these concerns as well. I can see where this strategy might make sense for some bean-counter weighing anticipated legal and enforcement costs against potential earnings given widespread adoption of such a business model in the existing and projected player base, but... what looks good in an MBA's spreadsheet might not play out so well irl... I can imagine some viscious backlash. In the context of Winters' account of GW share prices increasing with accessibilty, such a move of content behind a paywall might make sense to investors. I would be surprised if share prices were to fall for such a move. I would anticipate the value of the brand declining, however. Luxury pricing maybe, but an object of ridicule for many by that point I would imagine.

    Gregor, I am perpetually at a loss as to why Epic is not an active line at the original scale, i.e. not remade a la Man o' War into something... different. Maybe there is motivation amongst some at GW, but resistance due to 3d printability, I can only guess. But that was maybe the best GW game that I ever played... I wish that I would have had more time with it when it was around. Regardless, the tie-ins with a 28mm system are obvious, as rules could be written that move from scale to scale, and that might be used for larger games at 28mm scale or the other way around, if someone has all the time in the world... Anyways, yes! Epic was great.

    This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/11 14:59:17


       
    Made in ca
    Longtime Dakkanaut





     H.B.M.C. wrote:


    Essentially it's a talk about accessibility, and what the changes between 8th and 9th have brought. It's also a talk about how 9th is basically "Tournament Edition", something I've been saying since 9th first came about, and the good and bad sides of such a system.


    So you're saying Crusade was made for tournament players? Because Crusade didn't exist until 9th, and now that it does, it's all I play.

    People who believe this tripe are people who only play matched. If you want to say "9th's matched play is THE tournament edition," that's another thing entirely, and I wouldn't bother wasting my time arguing it.

    But to pretend that Crusade doesn't exist to advance a personal narrative about the edition as a whole IS a bit of a flawed argument, yes?

     H.B.M.C. wrote:

     jeff white wrote:
    What about the cards, the ways that units are costed, the constant updates requiring new book purchases and now subscription services and so on - is there a way forward that can systematically improve the game and broader yet the hobby in general?
    For my own part, I'm wary that GW are so in love with their "streaming service" that even unit cards are something that will go away. Why spend money producing cards when you can put all that stuff behind a monthly pay wall?


    Look, the subscription services that GW has are: the Hachette model subscription- zero rules locked behind anything, 100% optional; the App- everything available in App also available on paper, so again, 100% optional; and finally, Warhammer+ - pure media, zero rules behind pay walls. I suppose you can lump White Dwarf in with subscription services as well, and again, the vast majority of rules content is once again 100% optional. So I'm not really sure what you're complaining about.

    As for cards, a $1.00 stack of 3x5 index cards, a ball point pen and 30 minutes with the dex I already own will give me all the cards I need, and ONLY the cards I need. Sure, GW's printed cards are convenient if you've got the disposable income. But anyone who thinks they are necessary has some real cognitive issues that should be worked out. Are there people who also believe you can only play 40k with official 40k faction dice at $30.00 a box too? Probably... And they are just as wrong.

    I happen to like 9th. I know that's a minority opinion on Dakka and in certain other corners of the Internet. But every time a thread like this appears, I feel it's important to post once to prevent it from being yet another echo chamber.

    This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/11 15:43:03


     
       
    Made in au
    Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






    Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

    PenitentJake wrote:
    So you're saying Crusade was made for tournament players? Because Crusade didn't exist until 9th, and now that it does, it's all I play.

    People who believe this tripe are people who only play matched. If you want to say "9th's matched play is THE tournament edition," that's another thing entirely, and I wouldn't bother wasting my time arguing it.

    But to pretend that Crusade doesn't exist to advance a personal narrative about the edition as a whole IS a bit of a flawed argument, yes?
    This is a very long-winded way of saying "I didn't watch the video!".

    Watch the video!

    PenitentJake wrote:
    Look, the subscription services that GW has are: the Hachette model subscription- zero rules locked behind anything, 100% optional; the App- everything available in App also available on paper, so again, 100% optional; and finally, Warhammer+ - pure media, zero rules behind pay walls. I suppose you can lump White Dwarf in with subscription services as well, and again, the vast majority of rules content is once again 100% optional. So I'm not really sure what you're complaining about.
    I wasn't aware I was complaining???

    I'm expressing a concern that GW has fallen in love with their W+ service and so are going to shift as much there as possible.

    PenitentJake wrote:
    As for cards, a $1.00 stack of 3x5 index cards, a ball point pen and 30 minutes with the dex I already own will give me all the cards I need, and ONLY the cards I need.
    Bully for you, but that's not what I meant and I'm sure you knew that.

    PenitentJake wrote:
    Sure, GW's printed cards are convenient if you've got the disposable income. But anyone who thinks they are necessary has some real cognitive issues that should be worked out. Are there people who also believe you can only play 40k with official 40k faction dice at $30.00 a box too? Probably... And they are just as wrong
    This isn't specifically 40k related, but GW has stopped putting up Warscroll PDFs on the store for everything released since Dominion. This is what I mean when I say that I fear this kind of action will increase/spread.

    PenitentJake wrote:
    I happen to like 9th. I know that's a minority opinion on Dakka and in certain other corners of the Internet. But every time a thread like this appears, I feel it's important to post once to prevent it from being yet another echo chamber.
    I want to know where I said I didn't like 9th in this thread, or why you feel the need to defend it.



    This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/11 15:58:19


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

     
       
    Made in de
    Contagious Dreadnought of Nurgle




    Imo, just put alternating activations on 9th edition rules and release proper narrative (asymmetrical or "historical") missions and it's a solid system. The rules are better than they've ever been, and balance is okay. Stop releasing a new edition every three years.
    Yes, alternating activations would probably need a new edition as well, but I'd be fine with that if it that would last for 10 years.
    It's the main aspect why 40K never was a very tactical game, 8/9th CC at least brought some activations in with CC and reactions through some stratagems. We need more of that.

    This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/11 16:15:17


     
       
    Made in it
    Focused Fire Warrior





    9th core rules are ok, nothing incredible but an improvement over 8th ed ones for sure.
    It's the additional rules on top and how they are distributed across tens of books, FAQs and Erratas that make it a complete mess.
    Without a certain russian website it'd be almost impossible for a new player to understand where a certain rule comes from.
    Balance has basically never been worse, probably as a consequence of that.

    Core rules in the 5th-7th period were better imho, more complex but more fun.
    If we had balance updates and FAQs back then, that would've been the peak of 40K for sure. What ruined 7th was a handful of broken rules (invisibility, alliances, ...) and the inherent unbalance of faction books that were never touched again once released.


     
       
    Made in us
    Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







    I think GW should try and push more support into side games, and try and broaden their umbrella to cater to more types of people rather than continuing to insist that (whatever the current edition of 40k is) should be all things to all people when it often quite manifestly isn't.

    I think GW is going to continue chugging along at the same old pace throwing random half-thought-out ideas into new editions of 40k and putting out undersupported side games because they're making a tremendous amount of money half-assing their rules.

    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 gb
    Longtime Dakkanaut



    London

     jeff white wrote:

    Gregor, I am perpetually at a loss as to why Epic is not an active line at the original scale, i.e. not remade a la Man o' War into something... different. Maybe there is motivation amongst some at GW, but resistance due to 3d printability, I can only guess. But that was maybe the best GW game that I ever played... I wish that I would have had more time with it when it was around. Regardless, the tie-ins with a 28mm system are obvious, as rules could be written that move from scale to scale, and that might be used for larger games at 28mm scale or the other way around, if someone has all the time in the world... Anyways, yes! Epic was great.


    At its peak Epic became GWs 2nd biggest selling system. Then 3rd flopped hard. A combination or rules players didn't like and massive increase in expense (previously you could get 20 sprues for £10, in 3rd you got one sprue for £5...) - no doubt driven by wanting a certain price point to have an army, but spoiling those intentions to have massive battles, and the cost of retooling virtually every model - made it unpopular. Prior to this GW had poured in a lot of resource. Multiple new plastic sprues, multipart lead models, etc. The return was a total loss. The lesson GW took away was people preferred the 28mm models.

    Then when GW US tried a soft reboot of BFG they saw overall salves go up, but a decline in 40k sales almost matching the increase in BFG sales. So while turnover was higher, so were costs making profit less.

    This thinking ruled the company until the current management started going back into those 'other' games. Perhaps they thought they could win back profits with new processes, or had realised by creating markets for those other systems then leaving them they had provided a springboard for competitors.

    Now the constraint on Epic is the manpower required for the launch hasn't been there alongside everything else (and that stuff is going fine) and as time marches on the growth of 3d printing amongst the Epic community makes it look like a less and less attractive market.
       
    Made in de
    Terrifying Doombull






    Nuremberg

    Isn't 9e incredibly popular? I thought GW were making more money than ever these days. It's not quite to my taste either (I don't like mechanics like command points that much and would prefer alternating activation) but it seems to be "peak 40K" for loads of people.

       
    Made in at
    Discriminating Warrior





    Austria

    has 40k peaked?

    kind of, in a way that GW made promises but not fulfilled them and now see the backlash

    while Warhammer was in a bad shape before GW replaced it with AoS, 40k was on the edge as well at the end of 7th

    what kept the game not only alive but increased the number of players and sales to a point never seen before, was the simple promise that
    "this time, we have learned from the mistakes, and are really trying to achieve something better"

    it worked for 8th, but with 9th similar mistakes are made again while at the same time ignoring the situation for people during the pandemic

    I mean replacing books before a lot of people had a chance to play a single game with those rules was not the best decision, especially with the new stuff being late


    From a Rules point of view, the Core was never that big of a problem, the problem has always been with the Army Books and GW did not learned from this, always replacing the core but never manage to get appropriate army books out
    (hence 8th worked as a lot of people were playing with the Index lists far longer than they should have, some groups not jumping on the Codex version until all factions that were used got one)

    and now GW is back on the road, but with a lot more people playing, there are a lot more people being upset if things go the wrong way
    the loyal community that accepts everything GW is doing, is still there, but they are a minority now


    the current hype was very much build upon the goodwill of the community
    and GW is trying hard to destroy this

    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 es
    [DCM]
    Secret Inquisitorial Eldar Xenexecutor






    your mind

     AnomanderRake wrote:
    I think GW should try and push more support into side games, and try and broaden their umbrella to cater to more types of people rather than continuing to insist that (whatever the current edition of 40k is) should be all things to all people when it often quite manifestly isn't.

    I think GW is going to continue chugging along at the same old pace throwing random half-thought-out ideas into new editions of 40k and putting out undersupported side games because they're making a tremendous amount of money half-assing their rules.

    I wish that I could disagree with the point of the second paragraph, but I cannot. I like the idea in the first paragraph, a lot, and I suppose that there has been some movement with positive responses in those directions e.g. Armageddon, new KT (many people seem to enjoy it), Crusade... Maybe this is the way to move forward. People need not engage with 40K and can rather put energies into other in-universe systems





    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    PenitentJake wrote:
    So you're saying Crusade was made for tournament players? Because Crusade didn't exist until 9th, and now that it does, it's all I play.

    People who believe this tripe are people who only play matched. If you want to say "9th's matched play is THE tournament edition," that's another thing entirely, and I wouldn't bother wasting my time arguing it.

    But to pretend that Crusade doesn't exist to advance a personal narrative about the edition as a whole IS a bit of a flawed argument, yes?
    This is a very long-winded way of saying "I didn't watch the video!".

    Watch the video!
    Spoiler:

    PenitentJake wrote:
    Look, the subscription services that GW has are: the Hachette model subscription- zero rules locked behind anything, 100% optional; the App- everything available in App also available on paper, so again, 100% optional; and finally, Warhammer+ - pure media, zero rules behind pay walls. I suppose you can lump White Dwarf in with subscription services as well, and again, the vast majority of rules content is once again 100% optional. So I'm not really sure what you're complaining about.
    I wasn't aware I was complaining???

    I'm expressing a concern that GW has fallen in love with their W+ service and so are going to shift as much there as possible.

    PenitentJake wrote:
    As for cards, a $1.00 stack of 3x5 index cards, a ball point pen and 30 minutes with the dex I already own will give me all the cards I need, and ONLY the cards I need.
    Bully for you, but that's not what I meant and I'm sure you knew that.

    PenitentJake wrote:
    Sure, GW's printed cards are convenient if you've got the disposable income. But anyone who thinks they are necessary has some real cognitive issues that should be worked out. Are there people who also believe you can only play 40k with official 40k faction dice at $30.00 a box too? Probably... And they are just as wrong
    This isn't specifically 40k related, but GW has stopped putting up Warscroll PDFs on the store for everything released since Dominion. This is what I mean when I say that I fear this kind of action will increase/spread.

    PenitentJake wrote:
    I happen to like 9th. I know that's a minority opinion on Dakka and in certain other corners of the Internet. But every time a thread like this appears, I feel it's important to post once to prevent it from being yet another echo chamber.
    I want to know where I said I didn't like 9th in this thread, or why you feel the need to defend it.




    it was a good video with a lot of thought behind it from a smart man who knows a LOT about this hobby. Recommended viewing/listening, indeed.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     Aenar wrote:
    9th core rules are ok, nothing incredible but an improvement over 8th ed ones for sure.
    It's the additional rules on top and how they are distributed across tens of books, FAQs and Erratas that make it a complete mess.
    Without a certain russian website it'd be almost impossible for a new player to understand where a certain rule comes from.
    Balance has basically never been worse, probably as a consequence of that.

    Core rules in the 5th-7th period were better imho, more complex but more fun.
    If we had balance updates and FAQs back then, that would've been the peak of 40K for sure. What ruined 7th was a handful of broken rules (invisibility, alliances, ...) and the inherent unbalance of faction books that were never touched again once released.


    I have made bold what seems to be the most common complaint that I have heard/seen. That resource website to which you point is a go-to for light reading into the mechanics of the not-so-grim dark for me, also, alongside a few other resources. What is confusing though is the balance issue, as other commenters in this thread seem to indicate that balance is OK. I have seen this issue up and down since 9th edition was released. My understanding was that things were getting better outside of a few broken units, though GW marketing being involved in rules writing seems still to be a big problem, with players who seem to purposefully misread rules for advantage regardless of common sense being the perhaps the second biggest source of complaints.

    This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/11 17:24:29


       
    Made in ca
    Longtime Dakkanaut





     H.B.M.C. wrote:
    PenitentJake wrote:
    So you're saying Crusade was made for tournament players? Because Crusade didn't exist until 9th, and now that it does, it's all I play.

    People who believe this tripe are people who only play matched. If you want to say "9th's matched play is THE tournament edition," that's another thing entirely, and I wouldn't bother wasting my time arguing it.

    But to pretend that Crusade doesn't exist to advance a personal narrative about the edition as a whole IS a bit of a flawed argument, yes?
    This is a very long-winded way of saying "I didn't watch the video!".

    Watch the video!


    You are correct, I didn't watch the video; I will when I get back home. But what I was reacting to is the text I quoted- text in which you said that the guy in the video said 9th was the tournament edition. The same quoted text also said YOU have been saying since the beginning of 9th that it is the tournament edition.

    Now the dude in the video may provide more nuance; HE might say in his video that the Matched play rules are the tournament edition. Whether or not he does, however does not change the fact that YOU posted the text I quoted; text which unequivocally says that YOU have been saying 9th is the tournament edition for some time now. I am merely pointing out that 2/3 ways to play were NOT designed for tournaments.

    But you've got me talked into watching the video, and maybe I will post another reaction once I get the chance. Just want to be clear though- my reaction, which you quoted above, was to your text. I am pretty sure YOU said that you've been saying for a while that 9th is THE tournament edition. Since neither Open play, nor Crusade were designed for tournaments, and both are a part of the 9th edition, the text that you wrote and I quoted is wrong, regardless of what the video says.

    You can say matched play is designed for tournament players. I would agree.

    You didn't.

    So I don't agree with what you wrote. I'll watch your video when I get a chance. It won't change the fact that only one of the three ways to play was designed for tournaments.

     H.B.M.C. wrote:

    PenitentJake wrote:
    Look, the subscription services that GW has are: the Hachette model subscription- zero rules locked behind anything, 100% optional; the App- everything available in App also available on paper, so again, 100% optional; and finally, Warhammer+ - pure media, zero rules behind pay walls. I suppose you can lump White Dwarf in with subscription services as well, and again, the vast majority of rules content is once again 100% optional. So I'm not really sure what you're complaining about.
    I wasn't aware I was complaining???

    I'm expressing a concern that GW has fallen in love with their W+ service and so are going to shift as much there as possible.


    This is totally fair. Reread your posts and Jeff's, and you're right; "complaining" was too strong a word. Sorry about that- I guess I'm just so used to 40 page dumpster fires of negativity that I sometimes see them coming before the discourse actually degenerates that far. My bad- I'll try to be more fair going forward.

    I will say there isn't any actual evidence to suggest that rules will eventually only be available via subscription; that's not the same as saying it won't happen; certainly it could. There just isn't any actual evidence yet that it will.

    Is that fair?

     H.B.M.C. wrote:

    PenitentJake wrote:
    As for cards, a $1.00 stack of 3x5 index cards, a ball point pen and 30 minutes with the dex I already own will give me all the cards I need, and ONLY the cards I need.
    Bully for you, but that's not what I meant and I'm sure you knew that.

    PenitentJake wrote:
    Sure, GW's printed cards are convenient if you've got the disposable income. But anyone who thinks they are necessary has some real cognitive issues that should be worked out. Are there people who also believe you can only play 40k with official 40k faction dice at $30.00 a box too? Probably... And they are just as wrong
    This isn't specifically 40k related, but GW has stopped putting up Warscroll PDFs on the store for everything released since Dominion. This is what I mean when I say that I fear this kind of action will increase/spread.


    Again, fair. When I first read your post, I didn't see the word "Unit" in front of the word "cards" - my bad. For what it's worth, I'm not fond of the "rules" that come in the box with 40k models- their use of symbols instead of words, and the omission of unit rules are less than ideal. Because I want the full dex anyway, it isn't as much of a problem for me as it might be for others, but I can see the point. I also have little to no knowledge of AoS, so I wasn't aware of the warscroll issue, and I will concede that yes, it does provide some justification for your fears.

     H.B.M.C. wrote:

    PenitentJake wrote:
    I happen to like 9th. I know that's a minority opinion on Dakka and in certain other corners of the Internet. But every time a thread like this appears, I feel it's important to post once to prevent it from being yet another echo chamber.
    I want to know where I said I didn't like 9th in this thread, or why you feel the need to defend it.


    Fair enough- you didn't say you don't like 9th. And rereading your post, it isn't as negative as it felt. Like I said earlier, I think I'm anticipating where it's going rather than reacting to what is actually written- I've just seen so many Dakka threads go that way.

    I feel the need to defend 9th since it feels like the majority on Dakka feel the need to attack it. But maybe I have my own biases that cause me to see attacks where none are intended.
       
    Made in es
    [DCM]
    Secret Inquisitorial Eldar Xenexecutor






    your mind

     kodos wrote:
    has 40k peaked?

    kind of, in a way that GW made promises but not fulfilled them and now see the backlash
    Spoiler:

    while Warhammer was in a bad shape before GW replaced it with AoS, 40k was on the edge as well at the end of 7th

    what kept the game not only alive but increased the number of players and sales to a point never seen before, was the simple promise that
    "this time, we have learned from the mistakes, and are really trying to achieve something better"

    it worked for 8th, but with 9th similar mistakes are made again while at the same time ignoring the situation for people during the pandemic

    I mean replacing books before a lot of people had a chance to play a single game with those rules was not the best decision, especially with the new stuff being late


    From a Rules point of view, the Core was never that big of a problem, the problem has always been with the Army Books and GW did not learned from this, always replacing the core but never manage to get appropriate army books out
    (hence 8th worked as a lot of people were playing with the Index lists far longer than they should have, some groups not jumping on the Codex version until all factions that were used got one)

    and now GW is back on the road, but with a lot more people playing, there are a lot more people being upset if things go the wrong way
    the loyal community that accepts everything GW is doing, is still there, but they are a minority now


    the current hype was very much build upon the goodwill of the community
    and GW is trying hard to destroy this

    Spoilered some good points in order to keep this post from eating up an entire page. Yeah, I get this feeling, and got this feeling from the podcast hosts to which I was listening yesterday, too. People seem to have had enough. The host who was most unimpressed by current 40K is not one to get jerked around, and that was the feeling that I was getting, that he just cannot take the game seriously anymore. Too much time and money investment for a sub-standard experience, when there are so many other things to do! My feeling was that, if a host with that sort of charisma comes off in this sort of way, consistently, against 40K and GW for these sorts of reasons, then this attitude will build in the community, and 40K will have peaked. This seems to be the moment that an arrogant company might push a ton of plastic and put rules behind a paywall or insist on releasing rules in expensive separate side-books and so on, while the community takes an attitude contrary to this big push. You make a good point about the lockdowns in this regards, with many people excited for their hobby while stuck at home, buying all sorts of books and models, only to not be able to use them, and if GW were to make a big push for a new release cycle as if this is the way to make more money, then I can also foresee many people rejecting such a move, outright, and ... I mean, I haven't seen a GW 40K model on "discount" at a local hobby store for a long time, since they were made of lead, but it could happen again.

    This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/09/11 17:40:16


       
    Made in es
    [DCM]
    Secret Inquisitorial Eldar Xenexecutor






    your mind

    PenitentJake wrote:
    So you're saying ...
    I feel the need to defend 9th since it feels like the majority on Dakka feel the need to attack it. But maybe I have my own biases that cause me to see attacks where none are intended.

    Deleted a lot so as not to eat up the entire page with quotes (again). Exalted. Thanks for the follow up, Jake.

    This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/11 17:40:50


       
    Made in dk
    Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker






    9th is perfect for casual play. With a pruning of Stratagems and removal of Chapter Tactics, Combat Doctrines or Super Doctrines and a new testing methodology 9th would become perfect for competitive play as well.

    8th did competitive play better, more of the gimmicks and gotchas were in the core rules rather than codexes, disabling charges by placing models in on top of terrain without leaving room for chargers and 3-pointing with most factions having no escape. These things also made it a lot worse as a casual edition, because to some casual means narrative and unchargable units and 3-point manouvres are anything but narrative.
       
    Made in us
    Never Forget Isstvan!






    Command points are a big issue of contention.

    There are too many and they are too necessary atm.


    We should honestly just go back to units having their own special rules, and drop command points down big time.

    They should actually work more like they do in the new KT 2021, with stuff you can activate in the command phase that works for the whole turn.

    Having only 3-8 CP the entire game and way less stratagems that are necessary for units to operate effectively would be far healthier for the game.


    Alternating activations are a possible step, but it would have to be a bit different.

    I'd like it more if the game went straight to one of each phase per turn, instead of both players having all the phases.
    One command phase, that players take turns doing stuff in, one movement phase, that players take turns in, etc.

    This would also open up potential actions or things for armies that dont participate in a phase.
    Your army has no psychers? Well every time its your activation in the psychic phase, you can attempt an action, or attempt to shake off a debuff your opponent has placed on you.

    JOIN MY CRUSADE and gain 4000 RT points!
    http://www.eternalcrusade.com/account/sign-up/?ref_code=EC-PLCIKYCABW8PG 
       
    Made in us
    Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







     jeff white wrote:
     AnomanderRake wrote:
    I think GW should try and push more support into side games, and try and broaden their umbrella to cater to more types of people rather than continuing to insist that (whatever the current edition of 40k is) should be all things to all people when it often quite manifestly isn't.

    I think GW is going to continue chugging along at the same old pace throwing random half-thought-out ideas into new editions of 40k and putting out undersupported side games because they're making a tremendous amount of money half-assing their rules.

    I wish that I could disagree with the point of the second paragraph, but I cannot. I like the idea in the first paragraph, a lot, and I suppose that there has been some movement with positive responses in those directions e.g. Armageddon, new KT (many people seem to enjoy it), Crusade... Maybe this is the way to move forward. People need not engage with 40K and can rather put energies into other in-universe systems...


    I'm hoping the rumored new 30k stuff comes with a resurgence in official support/plastic models, so we can have 9th for the people who like 9th and 30k with facings and scatter dice for those of us who'd prefer that.

    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 ca
    Regular Dakkanaut





    I strongly agree with the idea that strategems have become something quite bad for 40k.

    Some of that is design logic: great imbalance between strategems that render some useless. They also paradoxically often reduce the strategy of the game itself.

    Game's being decided because of one strategem that an opponent couldn't know about as it was locked inside a $50 shoddily made book that is only tangentially relevant to the game itself reduces the strategic and tactical merit of the gameplay.

    Returning USR and giving strategems to specific units as abilities that are all clearly documented in the faction's ONE codex would be a huge positive change.

    Some of that is business logic: driving sales through paywalling strategems within otherwise forgettable and not worth the oil/paper required to produce them (psychic awakening stuff).

    It just leaves a bad taste in people's mouths. How could it not? Especially hobbyists who have been around for 40 years or so...

    40k is definitely going through its "emperor has no clothes moment". From the outside it appears as though it is an untouchable giant. But from within, and from those of us who have been around the block, there are real cracks in the foundation.

    40k is certainly my group's "last resort" game and only played when we feel more "sci-fi" than fantasy. With the new KT out, it will scratch the "sci-fi" itch for sometime, as the chore of 2000 points of 40k just isn't worth it.

    There's too many pointless hurdles to get through (multiple rules books, errata, faq) and then the actual mechanics are super underwhelming (a 25 year old IGOUGO system that the Company won't touch as they're afraid the kill the goose which lays the golden eggs).

    I don't hold out much hope for 10th edition (as the rules are probably already finished for it already!).

    But what I do think is that if 40k doesn't re-invent itself, there is a huge gap in market there for a new sci-fi "mass battle" game to give it a good run for its money. This is likely why they're litigating so aggressively, to try and scare competition away.

    Part of the reason AoS is doing merely so-so is that there are tons of fantastic fantasy/historical rulesets out there already. My group is much more likely to play warmaster, hail caesar, WHFB 7th edition before we would ever get around to wanting to play AoS.

    Right now 40k has very little competition in the sci-fi setting. If they keep burning their customers and refuse to develop a better version of the game, eventually a product will come along that seriously threatens it because they've been too lazy in updating their own game.

    This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/11 18:11:00


     
       
    Made in us
    Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







    PenitentJake wrote:
    ...I feel the need to defend 9th since it feels like the majority on Dakka feel the need to attack it. But maybe I have my own biases that cause me to see attacks where none are intended...


    Most discussions of tabletop games seem to take either the position that because I'm not having fun the game is objectively bad and there's no way you could be having fun unless there's something wrong with you, or because I am having fun the game is objectively good and there's no way you aren't having fun unless there's something wrong with you. It's all rooted in the idea that we all engage with games the same way, which is increasingly wrong as the market expands and more people try to play wargames, and yet the idea seems to get more and more entrenched as 40k gets bigger. Personally I've mostly given up on the idea that 40k ought to be something I like, because the designers and I have some very fundamental differences of opinion on how a game ought to be run, and I'm trying to spend more time evangelizing for people to try more games instead of assuming 40k must be a universal system that appeals to everyone and tabletop gaming needs to start and stop there.

    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 gb
    Crazed Zealot




    South East UK

    As someone who hasn't played in probably over 10-12 years now, dropping back in has been quite overwhelming. Finding a community or even friends with a relaxed approach to the game seems more difficult nowadays.

    I actually moved away for those 10 years to a role play game set in the 41st millennium as it was the lore and faction profiles that drew me in and what I primarily loved most.

    There are some parts of 9th that do intrigue me, namely the crusades and I have heard good things about the missions especially comparable to 3rd and 4th Ed.

    I think the biggest grey area and off switch for me so far, Are changes or "advances" if you like in the lore, some of it feels a little choppy and some armies feel as though they've been made to be "more competitive" with "units they need to balance things out" vs units they'd tradionally have as per their history.

    I was keen to try 9th, but the more I read on various forums the more inclined I am to revert back to 4th edition or even 2nd or 3rd as it still seems popular amongst people.

    I think there's clear difficulty in sating the veterans & attracting the new players alike especially when you have people, such as myself, who want to get back on the horse, but equally want to ride the old horse, not whatever 3 legged one is currently out there.
       
    Made in de
    Terrifying Doombull






    Nuremberg

    I watched the video and broadly agree, but I also found late 8e pretty inaccessible for similar reasons. But it doesn't seem to be denting 40K much based on what I can see.

       
    Made in it
    Gargantuan Gargant




    Italy

    8th edition was more accessible only in the index era which lasted... one month maybe? And it was the most unbalanced edition ever in that period.


     
       
    Made in es
    [DCM]
    Secret Inquisitorial Eldar Xenexecutor






    your mind

    Eihnlazer wrote:Command points are a big issue of contention.
    There are too many and they are too necessary atm.
    We should honestly just go back to units having their own special rules, and drop command points down big time.
    They should actually work more like they do in the new KT 2021, with stuff you can activate in the command phase that works for the whole turn.
    Having only 3-8 CP the entire game and way less stratagems that are necessary for units to operate effectively would be far healthier for the game.

    Alternating activations are a possible step, but it would have to be a bit different.
    I'd like it more if the game went straight to one of each phase per turn, instead of both players having all the phases.
    One command phase, that players take turns doing stuff in, one movement phase, that players take turns in, etc.

    This would also open up potential actions or things for armies that dont participate in a phase.
    Your army has no psychers? Well every time its your activation in the psychic phase, you can attempt an action, or attempt to shake off a debuff your opponent has placed on you.

    These seem like good suggestions.
    1a) Drop CP (maybe completely) and
    1b) return to unit special rules (perhaps something like new KT).
    2) Alternate by phases rather than turns.

    AnomanderRake wrote:
    I'm hoping the rumored new 30k stuff comes with a resurgence in official support/plastic models, so we can have 9th for the people who like 9th and 30k with facings and scatter dice for those of us who'd prefer that.

    I am on the fence about this... I would like to stay involved in the current narrative (so-called "primaris" are useful idiot jackboots for heresy-on-high, to be purged accordingly) AND keep facings and templates and initiative and get rid of rando charges and CP and more .... and see no reason why a rules system could not be composed that allows for the plug and play of rules components that GW could simply draw from stuff that they already own, as they were present in prior editions or could be inspired from prior editions and improved for a new plug and play rules set. But, maybe marketing thinks it will be better business if they can try to sell another new line of hastiy composed computer art littered hardback collector's editions for yet another new and improved rules system. Fool me twice, umm, no. I like that other people like 30K, but we got plenty of heresy going on right here and now... lookin at you, Cawl.

    Gregor Samsa wrote:
    Spoiler:
    I strongly agree with the idea that strategems have become something quite bad for 40k.

    Some of that is design logic: great imbalance between strategems that render some useless. They also paradoxically often reduce the strategy of the game itself.

    Game's being decided because of one strategem that an opponent couldn't know about as it was locked inside a $50 shoddily made book that is only tangentially relevant to the game itself reduces the strategic and tactical merit of the gameplay.

    Returning USR and giving strategems to specific units as abilities that are all clearly documented in the faction's ONE codex would be a huge positive change.
    Spoiler:

    Some of that is business logic: driving sales through paywalling strategems within otherwise forgettable and not worth the oil/paper required to produce them (psychic awakening stuff).

    It just leaves a bad taste in people's mouths. How could it not? Especially hobbyists who have been around for 40 years or so...

    40k is definitely going through its "emperor has no clothes moment". From the outside it appears as though it is an untouchable giant. But from within, and from those of us who have been around the block, there are real cracks in the foundation.

    40k is certainly my group's "last resort" game and only played when we feel more "sci-fi" than fantasy. With the new KT out, it will scratch the "sci-fi" itch for sometime, as the chore of 2000 points of 40k just isn't worth it.
    Spoiler:

    There's too many pointless hurdles to get through (multiple rules books, errata, faq) and then the actual mechanics are super underwhelming (a 25 year old IGOUGO system that the Company won't touch as they're afraid the kill the goose which lays the golden eggs).

    I don't hold out much hope for 10th edition (as the rules are probably already finished for it already!).

    But what I do think is that if 40k doesn't re-invent itself, there is a huge gap in market there for a new sci-fi "mass battle" game to give it a good run for its money. This is likely why they're litigating so aggressively, to try and scare competition away.

    Part of the reason AoS is doing merely so-so is that there are tons of fantastic fantasy/historical rulesets out there already. My group is much more likely to play warmaster, hail caesar, WHFB 7th edition before we would ever get around to wanting to play AoS.

    Right now 40k has very little competition in the sci-fi setting. If they keep burning their customers and refuse to develop a better version of the game, eventually a product will come along that seriously threatens it because they've been too lazy in updating their own game.

    Finding lots of agreement on the USR angle, anti-strategem. The feeling about 40K being last resort is exactly the feeling that I got from that podcast host, too.

    Rhia_Stadtfeld wrote:As someone who hasn't played in probably over 10-12 years now, dropping back in has been quite overwhelming. Finding a community or even friends with a relaxed approach to the game seems more difficult nowadays.
    Spoiler:


    I actually moved away for those 10 years to a role play game set in the 41st millennium as it was the lore and faction profiles that drew me in and what I primarily loved most.

    There are some parts of 9th that do intrigue me, namely the crusades and I have heard good things about the missions especially comparable to 3rd and 4th Ed.

    I think the biggest grey area and off switch for me so far, Are changes or "advances" if you like in the lore, some of it feels a little choppy and some armies feel as though they've been made to be "more competitive" with "units they need to balance things out" vs units they'd tradionally have as per their history.

    I was keen to try 9th, but the more I read on various forums the more inclined I am to revert back to 4th edition or even 2nd or 3rd as it still seems popular amongst people.

    I think there's clear difficulty in sating the veterans & attracting the new players alike especially when you have people, such as myself, who want to get back on the horse, but equally want to ride the old horse, not whatever 3 legged one is currently out there.

    This comment speaks to Winters' "acessibility" of 8th assessment. For me, I was super excited about 8th when I saw Shadow War Armageddon, then super let down when I saw what 8th actually turned out to be. Maybe accessible, maybe good for share prices cuz a lot of people got hyped for a new approach (maybe oldsters misled by SWA as I intitially was), but not a game that I wanted to play. Indexes were a good idea...then they turned into a patchy cash grab and ... yeah, no. But, now, 2nd or 3rd or even 4th... talk about accessible! And affordable. And then there are some awesome hobby project house rule systems available right here on Dakka based on these older systems.

    So maybe back is the new forward for 40K.


    This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/09/11 19:47:37


       
    Made in gb
    Longtime Dakkanaut




    I think the conflict will always be between accessibility and... variety (depth would probably be a better word, but that's seemingly a red flag to a bull and just leads to lots of semantic arguments).

    40k has undoubtedly grown more complicated and arguably less accessible since the 8th edition indexes. You've got the expansion of special rules (to be fair, Ad Mech are possibly the worst for this), stratagems, warlord traits, relics and often ludicrous numbers of chapters "just cos" rather than because they facilitate meaningfully different ways to play a faction.

    But if you have none of this stuff, you often find the game is very quickly solved (as was the case with the indexes). If two people who play once every six months have a game, that likely doesn't matter - they don't know how the game is solved because its all relatively new to them. But if you are playing a game (or three) every week it can very quickly become stale.

    One of the weaknesses of WHFB was that at a mechanical level, games often looked the same with the difference in armies often being skin deep. You had a range of scenarios to supposedly change this - but most of them were not meaningfully different, or so skewed as to be borderline unplayable, lets just reroll.

    You can play 40k without stratagems if you want to - I don't think it makes the game more accessible. You can talk about alternate activations, but thats a fundamental change at which point its basically not 40k as exists any more.
       
    Made in us
    Ork Boy Hangin' off a Trukk





    For me 40k peaked with 4th edition, the last edition where the main rulebook gave a damn about the hobby by including easy tips (and templates!) for building game tables, terrain pieces, and kitbashing models, with a lot of pictures of actual players' conversions. The 3rd edition codexes also included a lot of hobby info and examples of conversions.

    Now the books are focused just on selling GW's models, more and more monopose these days with fewer customization options, and any hobby advice and materials are expected to be separate purchases from GW.

    Gameplay-wise, having played 40k on and off from 2nd edition to 8th and being familiar with 9th edition's rules and codexes, I also go with 4th Edition with just a few house rules (ex. no Eldar grav tank defensive upgrades). Honorable mention to the new Apocalypse ruleset which is a lot of fun to play. It's very much like Epic in 28mm scale, but also able to played well at lower point levels approximating 2000-point standard 40k games. It's nice playing a "closed" / "complete" ruleset where books are not being added or rules not changing on a fast, regular basis.

    This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/14 00:22:52


    Apocalypse/40K: Orks, Imperial Guard, Eldar, Space Wolves, Necrons, Dark Eldar
    AOS: Stormcast, Sons of Behemat (Mantic and D&D giants)
    Blood Bowl: Orcs, Dark Elves, Chaos Dwarves, Undead, Wood/Pro Elves, Humans, Skaven, Goblins, Dwarves, Necromantic, Khemri, Snotlings, Underworld, Vampires, Lizardmen, Chaos, Amazons, Ogres, Halflings 
       
    Made in us
    Decrepit Dakkanaut







    The game is solved unless utterly buried in special rules....

    If only there was a way to design a simple game with depth enough to GO unsolved.

    There certainly aren't GOing to be any examples of a game that is centuries old, simple, and hasn't been solved. GO.
       
    Made in gb
    Crazed Zealot




    South East UK

    Back would be cool, but in equal measure the positives I like in 9th from what I've read so far:-

    - Crusades, cool as
    - Missions, far better than 3rd
    - Army & Faction Keywords for force org charts
    for combining forces. Also very cool.
    - Finally, psykers, for a galaxy rife with psychic ability, witch hunters etc, and those who should have them, they felt hugely neglected in previous editions.

    I'm sure as I go I'll find more things I like and don't as I'm yet to actually play a game so can't comment on the flow of things but I'm up for giving it a shot.

    Imo there will always be an imbalance or a meta or an optimal composition. So that's kind of a moot point across systems.

    I imagine 9th, probably is, for those seeking to play competitively very good. I remember playing sisters in 3rd and into 4th a fair way still on the 2nd Ed codex, and that... was a world of hurt.

    It doesn't help I'm not the best at being a socialble person so having stepped out and lost touch with those into the hobby or in my area has made it a little rough.
       
     
    Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
    Go to: