Switch Theme:

The downward edition spiral of 40k all started with 6th edition  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




NE Ohio, USA

Karol wrote:
The problem is that stores often only run GW games, or even just w40k and maybe some AoS. Meaning you can't just switch systems, because no one at the store can play them.


Are your stores opposed to these other games because they don't/won't sell them?
I understand, & can even support, the position of not allowing stuff you don't/won't stock being played. Afterall you probably don't want to provide a free showcase for something you won't be profiting from. EX; GW stores. You'd never go to a GW & expect to buy/play Infinity....

But if there was interest, would your stores stock, or could they at least order these other games?
Would they still be opposed to people playing these games there even if they only ordered stuff for two or three interested people?
Ex; The one local shop doesn't stock Star Wars Legion or Armada. But if you want it they'll order it for you. And they aren't opposed to the people they ordered it for playing it on their tables.
Another local shop doesn't stock Flames of War (15mm WWII). But they're perfectly fine with a few of us bringing it in & trying to build interest.




   
Made in de
Terrifying Doombull






Nuremberg

I was 12 when I started playing and lived in the countryside outside a tiny village in Ireland. The nearest game store to me was 4 hours away in Dublin, and it had like 2 tables at the time. So I made my own table, made buildings out of packaging, cut rivers from cheap felt, dismantled a bit of an artificial christmas tree to make plants and made a bunch of trees and alien plants from trash. I also shelled out for a small box of model railway trees. Set it up in my bedroom that I shared with my brother and invited people from school around to play. We played for years like that. When I went to Uni I started a wargaming club with similar modest beginnings. I only started to play in a shop in my mid twenties when I lived in Dublin. You don't need a shop to be interested in Wargaming.

   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord






 Da Boss wrote:
I was 12 when I started playing and lived in the countryside outside a tiny village in Ireland. The nearest game store to me was 4 hours away in Dublin, and it had like 2 tables at the time. So I made my own table, made buildings out of packaging, cut rivers from cheap felt, dismantled a bit of an artificial christmas tree to make plants and made a bunch of trees and alien plants from trash. I also shelled out for a small box of model railway trees. Set it up in my bedroom that I shared with my brother and invited people from school around to play. We played for years like that. When I went to Uni I started a wargaming club with similar modest beginnings. I only started to play in a shop in my mid twenties when I lived in Dublin. You don't need a shop to be interested in Wargaming.


Same. 40k wasn't even my first exposure to mini gaming, board games like Legend of Zagor and Dark World were. Then my first wargame was a prepainted game called Havok. GW and 40k came along later after myself and my brother got directed there by a lady that worked at Woolworths when we came in looking for Havok minis (I feel I really dated myself with that paragraph there!).

And even then, I had more games at home (or at a friend's house) than at the GW store, mainly as it was in the nearest town and we lived in a village on the outskirts, so I could only get there on Saturdays or Sundays. Board was one of the old GW 4x4 ones (AKA two 2x4 sheets of mdf coloured green and sold at a markup! ) with polystyrene scenery and the cardboard ruins from the 40k 2nd ed box.

Didn't properly start going into GW on the regular until my mid to late teens.



A GW fan walks into a bar, buys the same drink as yesterday but pays more.

""Unite" is a human word, ... join me or die."

If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them. 
   
Made in pl
Contagious Dreadnought of Nurgle




I'm in this hobby since 18 years. I think I had 6games that weren't at home of someone but in a GW or a Club.
Over time we stopped playing on the floor though, signs of getting old .
   
Made in ca
Regular Dakkanaut





Im sure the timeline is exactly as Rick Priestley alludes too: when the GW sales team started telling the GW design studio what to make and in order to pump business growth the 40k game system became impossible to manage.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/01 13:14:45


 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Gregor Samsa wrote:
Im sure the timeline is exactly as Rick Priestley alludes too: when the GW sales team started telling the GW design studio what to make and in order to pump business growth the 40k game system became impossible to manage.


In other words: A sales driven ruleset is inferior to one implemented by true hobbyists. Maybe 40K will get some day the same treatment WHFB got in the form of 9th Age.
   
Made in us
Grumpy Longbeard




washington state USA

 Strg Alt wrote:
 Gregor Samsa wrote:
Im sure the timeline is exactly as Rick Priestley alludes too: when the GW sales team started telling the GW design studio what to make and in order to pump business growth the 40k game system became impossible to manage.


In other words: A sales driven ruleset is inferior to one implemented by true hobbyists. Maybe 40K will get some day the same treatment WHFB got in the form of 9th Age.


It already has thanks to Mezmorkis prohammer project(and other similar unified rules made by fans), we definitely are not getting it from GW.



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





 Strg Alt wrote:
 Gregor Samsa wrote:
Im sure the timeline is exactly as Rick Priestley alludes too: when the GW sales team started telling the GW design studio what to make and in order to pump business growth the 40k game system became impossible to manage.


In other words: A sales driven ruleset is inferior to one implemented by true hobbyists. Maybe 40K will get some day the same treatment WHFB got in the form of 9th Age.


Just some comments from the 9th age forums:

This game is hard for beginners. You need to buy, assemble and paint a lot of miniatures that is problem number one. The second problem is that the rules are complicated. It simply takes too much effort to learn and too much time is spend looking up rules, rather than playing. It is even difficult for semi-regular players. Im the only one in my gaming group who still plays this game. The rest have switched to other more accessible games, and have to some extend brought me with them. Especially once we became dads we have less available time. Sometimes months go by without a game of T9A (we play something easier & faster like Warhammer Quest). When I finally get to play T9A it is against a stranger, since my friends have given up.


I couldn't agree more. Some elements of 9th Age are just over engineered. There is hardly any benefit from this additional level of complexity. It creates unnecessary obstacles for new players and keeps the target audience limited to people who can spend a lot of time for their hobby.


They also usually argue that T9A is well made, but all the balancing also makes it boring. More like chess (which is of course a bit of an exaggeration). In WHFB, you had more skewed lists that did one thing well and others bad. This is unbalanced and more rps, but also fun and flavorful. Also, the lists in T9A are more similar to each other. It's easier to predict what you're going to face.

I think they are correct in their criticism actually (to a degree) but that this is also the strengths of the system. It's balanced and player skill is more important. This obviously fits tournament players better. Since I like the competitive side, it also fits me although I can appreciate the other types of games. But one has to realize that these strengths is probably a good fit for a minority of players. I'm not saying that balance is bad, but good balance doesn't outweigh the other stuff if you're not part of the minority that appreciates a game like T9A.


On the rare occasions that I do get to play, I find the rules to be pretty confusing, I hope that my opponent knows the rules so we don't have to look stuff up constantly, and end up getting beat pretty badly most games because my opponents are able to play much more frequently and do know the rules better. I love the game, the players, and I love my army, but I too wish that the rules were simpler.



   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







Well, yeah. The defining characteristic of GW's games is that they emphasize clearing up the core rules at the expense of bloating the army book rules way out of control. Games like the 9th Age are harder to start playing, but way easier to keep playing once you've gotten over the initial bit of the learning curve because the army books are cleaner, more consistent, and don't get torn down and started over on a regular basis.

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
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 AnomanderRake wrote:
Well, yeah. The defining characteristic of GW's games is that they emphasize clearing up the core rules at the expense of bloating the army book rules way out of control. Games like the 9th Age are harder to start playing, but way easier to keep playing once you've gotten over the initial bit of the learning curve because the army books are cleaner, more consistent, and don't get torn down and started over on a regular basis.


And creates problems growing the base so that you actually have people to play with. There's a balance. It's the same mindset that twisted the knife in Warmachine. Without stepping stones, model expansion, and fluff that connects people to the hobby you won't grow.

   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 Daedalus81 wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
Well, yeah. The defining characteristic of GW's games is that they emphasize clearing up the core rules at the expense of bloating the army book rules way out of control. Games like the 9th Age are harder to start playing, but way easier to keep playing once you've gotten over the initial bit of the learning curve because the army books are cleaner, more consistent, and don't get torn down and started over on a regular basis.


And creates problems growing the base so that you actually have people to play with. There's a balance. It's the same mindset that twisted the knife in Warmachine. Without stepping stones, model expansion, and fluff that connects people to the hobby you won't grow.


I don't think every single wargame needs to be a straightforward entry point into the genre; if you're trying to do that and you don't have the strength of IP of MCP or Star Wars you're going to be fighting the GW marketing juggernaut directly and getting squished. You won't be able to attract inexperienced players because they'll go for the more visible game first, and you won't be able to attract experienced players because you don't offer them something different from what the existing intro points already gave them. There's absolutely room for games to exist for people who are disillusioned with GW and want something more detailed with more stable rules. You're not going to make a GW-killer that way, but I'm really glad there are segments of the market that exist that aren't either GW or trying to ape GW. It's harder to get games, sure, but I don't think trying to go after the exact same audience as GW would make those games' playerbase any bigger.

I do agree with you that that's the mindset that killed Warmachine, but for different reasons; they started off as a niche game trying to target a segment of the market GW wasn't really going after, and had a lot of success, but as they got bigger they failed to pivot to making the game more accessible, so they weren't able to sustain that growth and overextended themselves and died when GW rolled over slightly and got the tournament people back. There are a lot of minis companies out there that aren't dying because they're not trying to fight GW directly, they're aiming at different markets and not trying to position themselves as the GW-killer.

This is also kind of why I stick around on this forum despite having largely quit 40k; I think without the grumblers people get the impression that GW is where wargaming starts and ends. They don't get exposed to other options or get to sit through people arguing about the differences between 40k and Warmachine, or 9th Age, or Infinity, or whatever else, and then when they get frustrated with GW they quit wargaming entirely instead of trying to find something they might like better. People need to be exposed to the existence of a broader world rather than just living in the 9e echo chamber (I've met people quitting 40k who have never heard of 30k and are unfamiliar with the concept that there are thirty years of different rulebooks written by different people for them to experiment with without ever having to buy another miniature).

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/08/02 00:16:28


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
Shas'la with Pulse Carbine




Sacratomato

Hmmm, same arguments and complaints every new edition of the game and codex releases.

40k was stagnant for so many factions between 3rd and the beginning of 5th edition.

Most players complained then about how old their codex was and how the rules were outdated and boring.......GW makes changes = complaints.

I don't defend GW often, but I do complain about complainers who do the same thing every year no matter what.....

Yes, we all get it, you aren't satisfied and you have every right to complain followed by adapting or not buying expensive models and rules from GW.

70% of all statistics are made up on the spot by 64% of the people that produce false statistics 54% of the time that they produce them. 
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




ccs wrote:
Karol wrote:
The problem is that stores often only run GW games, or even just w40k and maybe some AoS. Meaning you can't just switch systems, because no one at the store can play them.


Are your stores opposed to these other games because they don't/won't sell them?
I understand, & can even support, the position of not allowing stuff you don't/won't stock being played. Afterall you probably don't want to provide a free showcase for something you won't be profiting from. EX; GW stores. You'd never go to a GW & expect to buy/play Infinity....



I actually don't know that. The old stuff did order a ton of smaller scale historical stuff, but there was a closed circle of people playing huge battles after the closing hours, which I was not allowed to attened because of the alcohol+under 18=shop loses license. I would have to ask. The new store doesn't sell infinity models, but they do order big every 2 months for the people playing at the store. Plus the owner makes nice recasts he has a really nice looking IG army made out of a less sci fi looking infinity faction. It would for sure be worth to ask.


Most players complained then about how old their codex was and how the rules were outdated and boring.......GW makes changes = complaints.

Can't say about all the other factions, but the GK codex was a copy paste of the index with relics and stratagems added, and most stratagems added were copy past of the marine ones. But the PA book was nice, not a codex, but all GK players liked it. I didn't get it fast enough, to play it in 8th, because of covid and how slow GW delivers some books to stores. But I can't imagine playing GK without the PA book in 9th. It would be really really bad. Probably worse then 9th expiriance to be honest.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
I don't think every single wargame needs to be a straightforward entry point into the genre; if you're trying to do that and you don't have the strength of IP of MCP or Star Wars you're going to be fighting the GW marketing juggernaut directly and getting squished.

I think it comes down to cost. If w40k came out today had a starting cost of at best 700-800$, not including terrain, rules, paints etc. People would not be playing the game, no matter how good the models look like. A game can be complex and with a high skill cap, when it is about, lets say 10-20 models.

Even cutting cost is easier with GW. Want to buy a w40k army at 1/3 cost, buy resin locally. try to do the same for less know games, and there maybe no one doing recasts for them. Or they are doing them and you have to wait a month to get 2-3 models, because they have a 200 model back log from western buyers they have to send out first.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/08/02 10:14:49


If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







Karol wrote:
...Even cutting cost is easier with GW. Want to buy a w40k army at 1/3 cost, buy resin locally. try to do the same for less know games, and there maybe no one doing recasts for them. Or they are doing them and you have to wait a month to get 2-3 models, because they have a 200 model back log from western buyers they have to send out first.


There's a lot less demand for recasts for other games, because a recast wouldn't be much cheaper than MSRP. Warlord's Pike and Shotte starters (=here's your 9th Age Empire army in a box) are around $130 US for 100-ish infantry, 20-ish cavalry, an artillery piece, and a couple of officers.

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
Sure Space Wolves Land Raider Pilot




Columbus, Ohio

 aphyon wrote:


Small edit @Wolflord

6th ed was the death of 40K in my area. it quite literally killed the game at the FLGS, the only saving grace for 7th was the release of the mechanicus and a few great new models for each faction

So i agree that's where the downhill started to pick up speed.


It killed it in my area and most other areas in the US that I saw or traveled to.

Incidentally, I had a lot of hope for 8th edition when it was being hyped up and at the time of release. After playing a few games with it, the game felt like it was still under construction and not a finished product. I still feel that way with 9th edition. I don't like the idea of memorizing Stratagems for list building combos, I don't like the idea of mortal wounds, and I really don't like direction the game looks to be headed in. This is not a knock on anyone who is currently enjoying the game. On the contrast, I'm glad that there are people who are enjoying it.

Proudly howling at 40k games since 1996.
Adepticon Team Arrogant Bastards
6000 point Space Wolves army
2500 point 13th Company Space Wolves army
3000 point Imperial Fists army
5000 point Dwarfs army
3500 point Bretonnian army
2000 point Beastmen army 
   
Made in ca
Jinking Ravenwing Land Speeder Pilot



Canada

I agree that 6th Edition was a downgrade, and I walked away for 7th. Where I think I disagree with you is that I believe that 8th was a huge improvement and that 9th has continued that upward trend. So 6th and 7th were a trough and we are back on a high.

For reference, I started in 2nd Ed and while I enjoyed playing 3rd through 5th Edition they weren't really my cup of tea.

I respect that some folks do not like the direction that 8th took and that 9th continued. If you don't like 40K anymore then I am not going to try to talk you into liking it!

I like that terrain matters, soup has been reigned-in and that missions matter. COVID makes it tough to gauge the real scene, but locally our 40K events sell out in a day and lots of folks are playing. It would seem that my locality is not the exception. The bottom line for GW also indicates that the game is doing well.

I do think that the Developers have had some glitches with some of the 9th Ed Codexes. While some late 8th superpowers were toned down (Space Marines et al), the Drukhari and AdMech books show that mistakes can be made. I note, though, that they make an effort to address them. Not fast enough for some, but its a positive change from previous editions. I don't like the campaign books that have Matched Play goodness locked inside them.

Still, 9th has been fun when I haven't been in lockdown!

All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




 Strg Alt wrote:
 Gregor Samsa wrote:
Im sure the timeline is exactly as Rick Priestley alludes too: when the GW sales team started telling the GW design studio what to make and in order to pump business growth the 40k game system became impossible to manage.


In other words: A sales driven ruleset is inferior to one implemented by true hobbyists. Maybe 40K will get some day the same treatment WHFB got in the form of 9th Age.



Yeah, 9th age isn't better.

2500pts
2500
3000


 
   
Made in us
Grumpy Longbeard




washington state USA

Wolflord Patrick wrote:
 aphyon wrote:


Small edit @Wolflord

6th ed was the death of 40K in my area. it quite literally killed the game at the FLGS, the only saving grace for 7th was the release of the mechanicus and a few great new models for each faction

So i agree that's where the downhill started to pick up speed.


It killed it in my area and most other areas in the US that I saw or traveled to.

Incidentally, I had a lot of hope for 8th edition when it was being hyped up and at the time of release. After playing a few games with it, the game felt like it was still under construction and not a finished product. I still feel that way with 9th edition. I don't like the idea of memorizing Stratagems for list building combos, I don't like the idea of mortal wounds, and I really don't like direction the game looks to be headed in. This is not a knock on anyone who is currently enjoying the game. On the contrast, I'm glad that there are people who are enjoying it.



We found a use for 8th-index 8th to be exact because it was easy to list build and it was streamlined enough to work and 3 universal stratagems were easy to remember and not game breaking.

We use it as an alternate rules set for epic 40K by just halving all ranges and movement distances. it works incredibly well in that setting but in a normal 28mm game setting it lacks so much depth it is really not interesting to play.



TangoTwoBravo wrote:I agree that 6th Edition was a downgrade, and I walked away for 7th. Where I think I disagree with you is that I believe that 8th was a huge improvement and that 9th has continued that upward trend. So 6th and 7th were a trough and we are back on a high.

For reference, I started in 2nd Ed and while I enjoyed playing 3rd through 5th Edition they weren't really my cup of tea.

I respect that some folks do not like the direction that 8th took and that 9th continued. If you don't like 40K anymore then I am not going to try to talk you into liking it!

I like that terrain matters, soup has been reigned-in and that missions matter. COVID makes it tough to gauge the real scene, but locally our 40K events sell out in a day and lots of folks are playing. It would seem that my locality is not the exception. The bottom line for GW also indicates that the game is doing well.

I do think that the Developers have had some glitches with some of the 9th Ed Codexes. While some late 8th superpowers were toned down (Space Marines et al), the Drukhari and AdMech books show that mistakes can be made. I note, though, that they make an effort to address them. Not fast enough for some, but its a positive change from previous editions. I don't like the campaign books that have Matched Play goodness locked inside them.

Still, 9th has been fun when I haven't been in lockdown!


9th appeals to certain types of players
1.new to 40K
they never experienced any other rules set for the game before or any wargames in general but GW marketing has drawn them in. (many tend to like the older editions better in my experience once they have had some demo games)
2.the super competitive players-i mean the edition was made for them so that is not a big surprise
3.the "must play the new edition/GWs word is law" crowd that is closely tied with the "i only play supported or the most active community" games or " i only have time for 1 game system. "

There are of course going to be some outliers from the older fans

I was never really in a hard lockdown so i got to experience 9th in all its "splendor" basically this entire time. it only took 1 read through of the core rules and i decided that was it. GW no longer makes a 40K war game. they make a 40K resource management game. so i jumped off the train and have been having the most fun with the universe ever since.

P.S. Every time somebody mentions how great terrain is in 9th i laugh because it is garbage compared to earlier editions, however it is an improvement over 8th so if that is all they had experienced i can see why some players think that going back and re-using bits of terrain rules from prior editions seems like an improvement.





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





 aphyon wrote:


9th appeals to certain types of players
1.new to 40K
they never experienced any other rules set for the game before or any wargames in general but GW marketing has drawn them in. (many tend to like the older editions better in my experience once they have had some demo games)
2.the super competitive players-i mean the edition was made for them so that is not a big surprise
3.the "must play the new edition/GWs word is law" crowd that is closely tied with the "i only play supported or the most active community" games or " i only have time for 1 game system. "



You forgot one: Crusade players.

As someone who loves Crusade, and has wanted a system like it since 1989, I think it's fundamentally off base to suggest that this edition is made for competitive players.

I think you'll also find this might be a favourite edition for people who like 500, 1000 and 3000 point games, because this is the first edition to have native support for games of those sizes.

9th ed was created for people who like options (I'm talking here about game options- NOT equipment options). 2k competitive games will always be the priority on Dakka; people need to remember that games of this type may not be the favourites for large populations of players. I feel like many of the people who pass judgement upon 9th do so based only on the 2k competitive game. I've engaged enough people to know that this is not universally true- some disillusioned players HAVE tried other game sizes and ways to play. I still hazard the guess that many, if not most, have not.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/03 02:46:35


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





PenitentJake wrote:
 aphyon wrote:


9th appeals to certain types of players
1.new to 40K
they never experienced any other rules set for the game before or any wargames in general but GW marketing has drawn them in. (many tend to like the older editions better in my experience once they have had some demo games)
2.the super competitive players-i mean the edition was made for them so that is not a big surprise
3.the "must play the new edition/GWs word is law" crowd that is closely tied with the "i only play supported or the most active community" games or " i only have time for 1 game system. "



You forgot one: Crusade players.

As someone who loves Crusade, and has wanted a system like it since 1989, I think it's fundamentally off base to suggest that this edition is made for competitive players.

I think you'll also find this might be a favourite edition for people who like 500, 1000 and 3000 point games, because this is the first edition to have native support for games of those sizes.

9th ed was created for people who like options (I'm talking here about game options- NOT equipment options). 2k competitive games will always be the priority on Dakka; people need to remember that games of this type may not be the favourites for large populations of players. I feel like many of the people who pass judgement upon 9th do so based only on the 2k competitive game. I've engaged enough people to know that this is not universally true- some disillusioned players HAVE tried other game sizes and ways to play. I still hazard the guess that many, if not most, have not.



Well considering there's no data to support any claims we can safely ignore the categorizations.

Every single person in my FLGS has been in since 5th or earlier and they agreed with the TO that 9th has been the best experience they've had in Warhammer so far, but that's as ignorable as anything else.

Terrain in older editions? Feh. 5th edition was what? Forts and invulnerable save cover? Makes for a great game when everyone wants to sit in their corners and shoot each other.

   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






 Daedalus81 wrote:

Terrain in older editions? Feh. 5th edition was what? Forts and invulnerable save cover? Makes for a great game when everyone wants to sit in their corners and shoot each other.
Yeah, the terrain rules in 5th were one of it's biggest disappointments. 4th ed was much better for terrain.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus




Well considering there's no data to support any claims we can safely ignore the categorizations.


They hired one of the biggest TO's in the US and employed the others as play testers. They remade the missions to work similarly to the most popular tournament circuits. It's pretty obvious they made the Matched Play rules with tournament players in mind.

But it's also correct that they provided a narrative mechanism as well. It seems like they at least attempted to optimize for both play styles. Our group just stopped playing 9th as we don't care for it at this point (Crusade is just 40k w/extra book keeping and matched play just feels so samey and is getting boring).

I'd actually agree you can start to see the problems bubbling up in 5th. If I'm not mistaken - wasn't that the edition where you could have Grey Knights deploy in such a manner the Demons would be prevented from deploying at all? Some of the codexes that came out towards the middle/end of that edition were so unbalanced. The end of 5th also saw the game getting kind of stale. A lot of games felt like "Oh. This again." and that's honestly where 9th is for a lot of people.

I think 8th (or at least 8th prior to the "All marines all the time" period) was a bright spot in that span of time and tehy had a chance to really get it rolling again. 7th was by far the worst edition (you know it's bad when Dakka can generally agree on something lol) and 8th saved the game in a lot of places. So I don't count 8th as part of the "Downward trend".

Honestly, 9th isn't terrible either, but so many people (myself and my gaming friends included) just aren't getting along with it. There's so many little things about the edition that people don't like. IMO it's still leagues better than 7th ....

Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug

Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..." 
   
Made in us
Grumpy Longbeard




washington state USA


You forgot one: Crusade players.


I left them out because it isn't really a factor. aside from family or close social groups 99.99% of all 9th ed games you see at the FLGS are matched play.

This isn't the first time GW has given you options either. the rules for playing kill teams and combat patrols with mission scenarios and such were in the 4th edition main rulebook. they were also much easier to track without the massive book keeping required with crusade.





Insectum7 wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:

Terrain in older editions? Feh. 5th edition was what? Forts and invulnerable save cover? Makes for a great game when everyone wants to sit in their corners and shoot each other.
Yeah, the terrain rules in 5th were one of it's biggest disappointments. 4th ed was much better for terrain.


Sounds like a lack of diverse terrain with your group/FLGS setting. there were cover saves that ranged from 3+ to 6+ dependent on the type of terrain, not counting the fact that LOS blocking terrain was also a thing. it helped, along with the less lethality of the prior editions, to reduce the impact of first turn IGOUGO mechanics that favored the army going first by providing hard saves. While gunline armies were a legitimate tactic, the best approach was well rounded lists because you eventually have to venture out to deal with objectives.

As for the 4th ed terrain rules DUST copies them a bit (go figure it is Andy Chambers with both of them) when it comes to area terrain minus the size category designations.



GAMES-DUST1947/infinity/B5 wars/epic 40K/5th ed 40K/victory at sea/warmachine/battle tactics/monpoc/battletech/battlefleet gothic/castles in the sky,/heavy gear 
   
Made in gb
Ship's Officer





Bristol (UK)

Problem with terrain rules is that most people don't care.

You can have all the fancy keywords and different types you like, but generally people aren't interested in having a five minute discussion on what the variety of terrain counts as.
So what you get is a hand wave and "eh, it's all ruins/light cover/whatever".
Even when there's specific defined rules for a piece of terrain, people would rather not bother using those.
That applies equally to all rules.
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





 aphyon wrote:

You forgot one: Crusade players.


I left them out because it isn't really a factor. aside from family or close social groups 99.99% of all 9th ed games you see at the FLGS are matched play.



Fair enough- but keep in mind that judging an edition based only on what happens in stores to the exclusion of what happens in people's homes might be one of the reasons for the disconnect that we see between the dissatisfaction that is consistently and continuously expressed on Dakka vs the huge success and sales numbers of 8th/9th edition.

 aphyon wrote:

This isn't the first time GW has given you options either. the rules for playing kill teams and combat patrols with mission scenarios and such were in the 4th edition main rulebook. they were also much easier to track without the massive book keeping required with crusade.


While true, the Kill Team and Combat Patrol rules in early editions were clear prototypes, which provided nowhere near the options provided by Crusade. Bespoke narrative content in the dexes and scaling game sizes with dedicated missions to facilitate the immersion of those earlier prototypes into the core game and to enhance the impact of escalation style play were incredibly innovative design choices that are likely to only ever be appreciated by people for whom campaign play is the primary interest.. People like me.

Those who enjoy individual games, separated from their army's narrative, and disconnected from other battles fought by their army don't really need Crusade- they may enjoy limited engagement with the system every now and again, or they may go nowhere near it. The hobby does need people who's preferred mode of play is isolated, 2k competitive games. I am grateful for all the people who play that way, because they help keep the hobby alive.

I just wish they felt the same way about the rest of us.





   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 aphyon wrote:

Sounds like a lack of diverse terrain with your group/FLGS setting. there were cover saves that ranged from 3+ to 6+ dependent on the type of terrain, not counting the fact that LOS blocking terrain was also a thing. it helped, along with the less lethality of the prior editions, to reduce the impact of first turn IGOUGO mechanics that favored the army going first by providing hard saves. While gunline armies were a legitimate tactic, the best approach was well rounded lists because you eventually have to venture out to deal with objectives.

As for the 4th ed terrain rules DUST copies them a bit (go figure it is Andy Chambers with both of them) when it comes to area terrain minus the size category designations.


9th edition terrain is way better at preventing alpha strikes than any prior edition.

   
Made in us
Grumpy Longbeard




washington state USA

 Daedalus81 wrote:
 aphyon wrote:

Sounds like a lack of diverse terrain with your group/FLGS setting. there were cover saves that ranged from 3+ to 6+ dependent on the type of terrain, not counting the fact that LOS blocking terrain was also a thing. it helped, along with the less lethality of the prior editions, to reduce the impact of first turn IGOUGO mechanics that favored the army going first by providing hard saves. While gunline armies were a legitimate tactic, the best approach was well rounded lists because you eventually have to venture out to deal with objectives.

As for the 4th ed terrain rules DUST copies them a bit (go figure it is Andy Chambers with both of them) when it comes to area terrain minus the size category designations.


9th edition terrain is way better at preventing alpha strikes than any prior edition.


Not in my experience, but your local mileage may vary.



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




It kind of a depends on the army. With some armies if the proper number of L shaped LoS blockers are used, some armies will always get off the charge. It doesn't even matter if they go first or second.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 Daedalus81 wrote:
...9th edition terrain is way better at preventing alpha strikes than any prior edition.


...And yet between movement creep, range creep, damage creep, move-and-fire creep, and risk-free Deep Strike alpha strikes are easier to get off than they've ever been.

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
Fixture of Dakka





Tell me the first edition you played without telling me the first edition you played.

"'players must agree how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use."

This is an actual rule in the actual rulebook. Quit whining about how you can imagine someone's army touching you in a bad place and play by the actual rules.


Freelance Ontologist

When people ask, "What's the point in understanding everything?" they've just disqualified themselves from using questions and should disappear in a puff of paradox. But they don't understand and just continue existing, which are also their only two strategies for life. 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: