Switch Theme:

Coming back to 40k after 15 years Away - Complex, and a bit disappointed  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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




Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





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


There's no rage in my post whatsoever, that's just you projecting. I'm trying to get to the heart of a few of the issues, but you seem more intent on blaming others for perceived shortcomings rather than addressing the issues with the game.

In other words, if I say "I wish the sky wasn't so grey today" your response would be "just close your eyes so you don't look at it". It doesn't address the issue: the sky sure is gray, you're just deflecting to try to avoid tackling the real issue: the sky is gray. Now, we can't really do a whole heck of a lot to address a gray sky, and there's likely not a lot we can really do to address troublesome game development on GW's side. Similarly, it's clear I can't change your mind on any of the above topics, and so I won't try.

What I will say is that once again you take a shot and miss the target completely. "Invisible", I thought I made pretty clear, is stuff that's not represented on the model. Of course it should be written on your list, but words on paper =/= bits on models, and that's part of the issue. You also go on and on about how long or short it takes to say x or y, but the fact of the matter is that it takes a lot longer to say those things and establish those clarifications ahead of time than just... putting your models on the table, which is what the previous poster, Unit, was trying to get at.

Either way, we seem to be at an impasse and I think my points have been made and we simply don't see eye to eye. I will say that you won't do yourself any favor by shifting the blame away from critical analysis of the game system and onto people that genuinely feel like there are a feth-ton of rules to absorb for this edition.
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







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


And if you're playing 7th you have the rulebook in front of you. You don't need to memorize every single rule because they are literally in front of your face. What's your point?

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
Kroot Carnivore





BrianDavion wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Tawnis wrote:
...While your complaints about 9th are certainly valid, this seems just as much an issue with the people in your community being meta chasing win at all cost nobheads.


I one hundred percent accept that the people I play with are all dicks, which is a big part of me not playing 9th. That said I get the exact same lectures here on Dakka as I do in person from those guys when I make the same observations, which leads me to think that it could be a broader problem.


complaining about a lack of internal balance in a codex and claiming "it's worse then ever": though is a straight up LIE when you're discussing a 8th edition codex. NO ONE denies that 8th edition had internal balance issues (so did 5th 6th and 7th) the actual armies with 9th edition codices however have very good internal balance. it's not perfect but it's definatly better then it's been in ages.

quit bitching about 9th edition being the problem when the real problem is you're using a 8th edition codex that wasn't very good in 8th and thus isn't going to magicly be any better with a simple edition change


Not everyone collects or wants to collect every army. Many people aren't going to just jump ship on an army they have spent decades collecting just because they aren't the hot new things anymore. Leaving old codexes with no updates at all is hurting a lot of these players. I'm not saying that codex's should be pumped out faster, but GW plans their releases years in advance, if they knew last year that things like Tau, CSM, GSC, ect, weren't getting a codex for a long time, putting out something small to give them a little boost would have created a lot of good will. For example a simple CSMs are now +1 wound (and maybe some minor points tweaks) would have been an easy solution to this problem. But then, they might make less money on the new codex sales when they finally come out...

I like 9th, and I certainly don't think that balance is "worse than ever" HOWEVER, there are certain armies (and by extension people who play those armies) that have received the short end of the stick for a VERY long time at this point when GW could have easily done something about it.

15000 4000 3500 2500 :tyranid: 2500 1000 1000
1000 1000 1000 1000  
   
Made in ca
Legendary Master of the Chapter





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


And if you're playing 7th you have the rulebook in front of you. You don't need to memorize every single rule because they are literally in front of your face. What's your point?


worst thing about 7th edition for me was the USRs that granted USRs.

"this unit has the AWESOME USR... hmm I wonder what that does, I'll look up awesome.. hmm Awesome gives the Gnarly and Cool USRs.... ok *flip flip* gnarly gives the amazing and specactular USRs.. *sigh flip flip* ok so thats what those are... now whats cool give... *flip flip* cool gives ... 3 differant USRs that I have to look up? ohh for god's sake!"

I mean for ease of referance they should have just c&p'd the text from the combined USRs and put them in, minimize searching.

Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







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


And if you're playing 7th you have the rulebook in front of you. You don't need to memorize every single rule because they are literally in front of your face. What's your point?


worst thing about 7th edition for me was the USRs that granted USRs.

"this unit has the AWESOME USR... hmm I wonder what that does, I'll look up awesome.. hmm Awesome gives the Gnarly and Cool USRs.... ok *flip flip* gnarly gives the amazing and specactular USRs.. *sigh flip flip* ok so thats what those are... now whats cool give... *flip flip* cool gives ... 3 differant USRs that I have to look up? ohh for god's sake!"

I mean for ease of referance they should have just c&p'd the text from the combined USRs and put them in, minimize searching.


7th was bloated and unwieldy. 9th is bloated and unwieldy. They just moved the bloat into the Codexes on the assumption that all the people screaming "no USRs are evil!" would come back and say "hey, no USRs, much easier to play!" independent of whether the game's in any way easier to play.

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
Death-Dealing Devastator





South Carolina, USA

 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Tawnis wrote:
...While your complaints about 9th are certainly valid, this seems just as much an issue with the people in your community being meta chasing win at all cost nobheads.


I one hundred percent accept that the people I play with are all dicks, which is a big part of me not playing 9th. That said I get the exact same lectures here on Dakka as I do in person from those guys when I make the same observations, which leads me to think that it could be a broader problem.


I literally just logged in for the first time in 4 months so I could tell you that you hit the nail on the head with this comment.

Squats 2020! 
   
Made in au
Repentia Mistress




My thoughts on moving bloat. I only need 1 book

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

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


That's... completely wrong.

In 5th Ed my Tyranid and Imperial Guard lists had no subfaction rules, no warlord traits, no relics, no purity bonus, only a handful of psychic powers treated as simple abilities (like shooting attacks) rather than having their own phase and bespoke mechanics for resolution, and far, far FAR fewer special rules.

And no stratagems.

Like, did you only just start playing in 7th or something? Because that's about the only way I can imagine you could perceive that there's no more bloat than there was in 3rd-5th.

Gert wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:

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

What exactly does that even mean?


When you finally figure out all the stratagems, WLTs, relics, special abilities, and other wombo-combo elements to understand an opponent's army in 9th, you face someone else and suddenly none of that applies.

Once you understand the core rules in 3rd-5th, you understand the game, and then understanding a new codex takes all of fifteen minutes. Everyone's running on the same core set of rules and the same USRs, with only a handful of army-wide special-rules.

The core rules are more complex, but that's really all you have to learn. Offloading the complexity to the codices means layer upon layer of codex-specific interweaving mechanics and combos to untangle.

   
Made in us
Inspiring SDF-1 Bridge Officer





Mississippi

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


8E & 9E shifted it from the chance of landing a hit, to the number of attacks you make and whether the hit is effective. Before, units hit on different numbers based on cross-referencing effectiveness. Now, instead the model hits on the same number, but the number of attacks they make, how resistance they are to the attack, and how many of those attacks have to succeed determine things. The percentages are still there, but except in the case of the Toughness stat, there's no table cross referencing - now you're left just looking up multiple stat lines and marking wounds. I don't think it's a better system because you're further into the chain before something stops you from rolling dice/consulting stats. Instead of stopping at the hit roll, you're also rolling Toughness, maybe armor or invulerable, maybe FNP, and then maybe tracking wounds.

I do like how Bolt Action handles things - Inexperienced troops are hit on 3+. Standard troops are hit on a 4+. Veterans are hit on a 5+. Inexperienced troops fire at -1, Vets at +1. Similar to the table method, but easier to memorize without half a dozen numbers involved.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/17 00:55:08


It never ends well 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 catbarf wrote:

Once you understand the core rules in 3rd-5th, you understand the game, and then understanding a new codex takes all of fifteen minutes. Everyone's running on the same core set of rules and the same USRs, with only a handful of army-wide special-rules.


First, 9th is bloated, yes.

Second, this statement is far too oversimplified. It takes forever to understand old codexes. Mostly by the way they were laid out, but at times exacerbated by USRs spread out. Almost no one could play old editions without the BRB. I haven't picked mine up in 9th in forever. So much so that I don't think I'd worry about owning a physical copy in the future.

And while 9th has a lot of rules they're not confusing - there's just a gakload of them. But they simply take the system as it is an increase some aspect. You either affect dice rolls by bonuses or rerolls, break the limits of the rules you already understand, or mortal wounds.

Here's the DE strats:

Break (rule), dice, dice, break, dice, break, dice, break, break, dice, break, break, break, mw, dice, break, mw, break, break, dice, mw, mw, break.

Granted this is really reductive, however, even with all of these options the opposing player isn't necessarily going to spend 1 CP to use Shock Prow. Why should I worry if they might use it? How is it much different from my opponent rolling hot and me rolling cold? It's just extra damage. The same goes for dice abilities. People use transhuman and then I could roll all 4+ anyway.

These are calculated gambles attempting to find footing to push the odds into one player's favor.

Where it gets fuzzy are the rule breakers. Of the 12 "break" strats you have two that give WL traits and one that gives relics. One that gives fallback and charge/shoot ( common ), move after shooting ( no charge ), deepstrike, deepstrike again, power from pain at round 5, remove from field into reserves, disembark from reserves, doubled drugs, max advance, poison affects vehicles.

You'll notice several of these are incredibly common - traits, relics, deepstrike, go back into reserves, fallback and do stuff, etc. Even the disembark from reserves is basically deepstrike since they have to be 9" away. Doubled drugs is a lot like dice mods, but if a unit has two drugs that's when you learn to watch it for hyperstimm.

The idea is that even strats follow a basic rule logic - at least new ones in 9th. If anything grants an out of phase move you can bet there will be no charging. If there's a deepstrike it will likely be 9" unless it's GSC, but even then it is a trade-off ( and really expensive ).


   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

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


That's... completely wrong.

In 5th Ed my Tyranid and Imperial Guard lists had no subfaction rules, no warlord traits, no relics, no purity bonus, only a handful of psychic powers treated as simple abilities (like shooting attacks) rather than having their own phase and bespoke mechanics for resolution, and far, far FAR fewer special rules.

And no stratagems.

Like, did you only just start playing in 7th or something? Because that's about the only way I can imagine you could perceive that there's no more bloat than there was in 3rd-5th.


What where regimental doctrines then, custom build your chaos warband, chapter tactic, IG regiment? What were special equipement/demonic blessings/whatever if not relics? The amount of rules bloat in relation to those editions is in general caused by the fact that now you have many more factions and units.


And I'll be honest with you. I prefer the way things were done in those days. If only we had those editions right now with the present release schedule, actual faqs and balance changes that fix things, etc... it would be glorious. But the truth is, warhammer, as it is right now, even with all the special rules people likes to repeat and repeat is easier to understand and play for a completely new player than trying to teach anyone older editions.

The game is just much more clear from the ground up. And even if they are bloat, the number of rules any given army has are relatively easy to understand. I know I know, half a dozen people will come and write down all the rules interaction for any given combo that needs 5 units and 2 powers and 2 CA and one FW supplement to do.


I have to say that one of the reasons people feel understanding old editions was easier was also because GW didn't put out so much content. When you had 2 codex a year with 0 extra material outside late 7th supplement spam, of course the game was easier to understand, and memorice. When your army had a codex for 7 years of course you'll end up learning it. But I don't believe that was better as much as people really, really like to say how they prefer it the old way.

TLR: Yes, there are mathematically more rules right now. Also, they are explained in a more clear and concise way, and are stacked in a more sensible form, so they outside some outliers like Admech are clear to understand. I understand people that does not like wombo-combos but those have always existed. Just ask for what kind of lists and characters and units people did with the 3.5 chaos codex.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/09/17 03:13:23


 Crimson Devil wrote:

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

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

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

 Galas wrote:
What where regimental doctrines then, custom build your chaos warband, chapter tactic, IG regiment?


Not present in every edition (eg completely absent in 5th), and not tied to warlord traits, relics, and stratagems that could open up additional combos beyond the raw army-wide traits.

At the start of the game I could tell you that I took a doctrine that lets me re-roll 1s when I stand still and that's it. It wasn't also tied to a host of other abilities that could fundamentally alter how my army plays or catch you in a gotcha if I don't remind you of its existence. You never got caught out in 4th Ed by a squad of Catachan Guardsmen with Straken and a Priest throwing out 60 attacks in one turn.

 Galas wrote:
What were special equipement/demonic blessings/whatever if not relics?


I genuinely don't know what you're talking about. Is the fact that I could give my company commander a bolt pistol somehow equivalent to bespoke relics that allow me to do ridiculous things like 10-damage attacks (see: Reaper of Obliterax)?

At the very least, if I took a bolt pistol it was expected that there would be a bolt pistol on the model and it merely represented a bolt pistol. Now it might be a bolt pistol or it might be a +4 Bolt Pistol of Sundering that one-shots Primaris and it's another thing I have to tell you and you have to remember.

 Galas wrote:
The amount of rules bloat in relation to those editions is in general caused by the fact that now you have many more factions and units.


No, it's on top of that. You have more factions, more units, way more equipment (including subdividing equipment that used to be homogeneous- hello, three different kinds of power weapon), more time-based abilities (Don't forget next turn Power From Pain will give me blah blah), more faction purity bonuses, subfactions for every army, and that's not even getting into stratagems, let alone how reasonably-straightforward USRs have been replaced with a multitude of bespoke and subtly different implementations of the same concepts.

The core gameplay may be simpler, but the sheer number of layers of options, complexities, synergies, buffs, and abilities conferred by each codex more than offset the gain. More importantly, the presentation makes it unintuitive and clumsy to learn- Wahapedia's formatting to show relevant weapons and stratagems on the same page as a unit entry is an absolute godsend.

Warmachine has a similar focus on combos and synergies, but the way it puts all the relevant content directly on the unit cards rather than somewhere in ten pages of 'wait I think I have a thing for this, hold on' is easier to grasp on the table. Every interaction you're facing in a given battle is right there, on the table, laid out for you to observe. GW could certainly improve the presentation of their rules, but there's a major design philosophy difference between a game that draws its emergent complexity from the traits of units on the table and one that draws it from an amalgam of units on the table, army-wide abilities, a collection of special powers, a separate wargear table, subfactions, and intangible wargear and character traits.

Put simply: GW needs to remember why WYSIWYG exists. It's so that you can look at a model and know exactly what it is and what it does without needing to remember or ask. So many vitally important elements of gameplay in 9th Ed are abstract and off-board, adding to the cognitive burden of a game that could use better reference material to begin with.

   
Made in it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

 Sim-Life wrote:


So we're back to "just buy better models"?


No, that's the opposite of what I said. We're back to "buy the models you like, avoid skew and play with 50-75% of your collection, or less". If you collect a well rounded force you should be good forever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 kodos wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
Someone that starts should aim at 1000 points games probably for years

a new Edition every 3 years and a new Codex within each new Edition, starting with a 1000 point games now (with the Edition being 1 year old, and the faction you want has no new Codex), you need 2000 points worth of models within a year to be save to have enough your new Codex or a new Edition changes things (or even CA might change points and you need 1-2 different units within half a year)

you needed 5 years to collect you 4k army how many different Editions and Codex have you seen during that 5 years?

now you need to collect those 4k within half the time to be save because otherwise you might end up with those problems

hence why people want everything now, because small amounts over a long period now means "within a year"



There's no need to buy all the books, just the basic ones: Rulebook + Codex. If you're in a group of friends even a single shared Rulebook will do. For points costs just look at the free battlescribe.

4k armies, if they are well rounded, last forever. Even smaller ones, like 3k, at least for some armies. I can play 9th with what I had in 5th edition and still be ok for casual games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hecaton wrote:


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



We disagree about internal balancing in 9th edition. I think that 90%+ of the units in 9th codexes are at least playable.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/17 07:10:25



 
   
Made in gb
Hungry Ork Hunta Lying in Wait





Honestly, make a unit can only be effected by ONE stratagem a phase will make the game much less feels bad when you super power a unit via strats and makes balancing a nightmare.

   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

When I think of the layered rules and strats and other nonsense in 40k, I just keep coming back to this and this. Yeah, they're CCG related, but even so... we're edging ever closer.

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

 
   
Made in gb
Killer Klaivex




The dark behind the eyes.

 Gir Spirit Bane wrote:
Honestly, make a unit can only be effected by ONE stratagem a phase will make the game much less feels bad when you super power a unit via strats and makes balancing a nightmare.


I'm still unclear as to why 40k needed (or needs) Stratagems in the first place. It seems almost all of them fall into one of the following categories:
- Stuff that should just be wargear and/or paid for with points.
- Stuff that should just be unit abilities.
- Stuff that shouldn't exist (shoot twice, fight twice or other flat bonuses like +1 to hit/wound, rerolls to hit/wound that add 0 tactical or strategic depth).
- Stuff that exists only to pad out the number of Stratagems ("Dark Tidings of the Fell Moon (2CP) - Use this Stratagem when your opponent's unit Advances its maximum distance on a Tuesday when your opponent is also wearing a blue hat. Roll 3 dice and inflict 1 Mortal Wound on the Advancing enemy unit for each 6 rolled. If your opponent's socks don't match, you may roll 1 additional dice.")

Maybe you'd have a few stratagems left after that but I'm not convinced they'd make the mechanic worth saving.


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
When I think of the layered rules and strats and other nonsense in 40k, I just keep coming back to this and this. Yeah, they're CCG related, but even so... we're edging ever closer.




I'll be honest, when I saw the first link, I wondered whether the second one would be this.

 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"

 Argive wrote:
GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.


 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"


Akiasura wrote:
I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.


 insaniak wrote:

You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in ie
Ruthless Rafkin





 vipoid wrote:
 Gir Spirit Bane wrote:
Honestly, make a unit can only be effected by ONE stratagem a phase will make the game much less feels bad when you super power a unit via strats and makes balancing a nightmare.


I'm still unclear as to why 40k needed (or needs) Stratagems in the first place. It seems almost all of them fall into one of the following categories:
- Stuff that should just be wargear and/or paid for with points.
- Stuff that should just be unit abilities.
- Stuff that shouldn't exist (shoot twice, fight twice or other flat bonuses like +1 to hit/wound, rerolls to hit/wound that add 0 tactical or strategic depth).
- Stuff that exists only to pad out the number of Stratagems ("Dark Tidings of the Fell Moon (2CP) - Use this Stratagem when your opponent's unit Advances its maximum distance on a Tuesday when your opponent is also wearing a blue hat. Roll 3 dice and inflict 1 Mortal Wound on the Advancing enemy unit for each 6 rolled. If your opponent's socks don't match, you may roll 1 additional dice.")

Maybe you'd have a few stratagems left after that but I'm not convinced they'd make the mechanic worth saving.



I feel like a lot of the intention behind 8th/9ths methods for how they laid out the rules was to have a granularity to the rules, so that when it came time they could easily adjust individual rules without effecting the wider game. In theory it's a good idea because if two different units have the same basic rule (let's say Fight Twice ability) and it makes one unit OP but not the other then you can nerf one unit while the other is unaffected. Unfortunately GW has no interest in making such minor tweaks and would rather just make you buy a whole new edition/codex and only nerf the REALLY broken units, rather than raise up under-powered ones.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Blackie wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:


So we're back to "just buy better models"?


No, that's the opposite of what I said. We're back to "buy the models you like, avoid skew and play with 50-75% of your collection, or less". If you collect a well rounded force you should be good forever.



I have a well rounded Tyranids army (about 8k pts I think). It sucks. My necrons (around 4k?) are also well rounded and REALLY suck,

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/09/17 17:38:10



 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





The first Xenos book for any edition had always been a sacrifice to the gods. First SM book usually as well, the difference being SM will get 1-2 updates within that edition and that Xenos book will not.

This is to the above about Necrons sucking.

My long term advice if you ha e a Xenos army, if they are the first release for that edition play them like crazy for the first few codexes then realize they are a just for fun army the rest of the edition.

GW often changes direction somehow in their concept for the game and how powerful factions should be early in each edition.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/17 19:54:03


 
   
Made in no
Huge Bone Giant





Bergen

 Peakab00 wrote:
Got back into playing 40k After 15 years away, I thought Id start with ORKS - Remembering them being a fairly easy race to pick-up, problem being they is only one real tactic with them and that's "rush" everything forward and close, and see how it pans out, So new Codex brought - absolute mind scramble! The rule changes and stratagems I cannot recall 40k being this complex several releases ago. absolute mountain of information to process almost takes the fun out of it?

How is anyone realistically supposed to know all the potential stats, relics, customs, special rules involved in an army? I'm finding this is almost taken the just play/have fun element out of game, any finding all the rules involved almost too much to learn ? Also creating an army list seems way more complex than I can previously remember. How can I simplify all this ?


Quite a lot of blote was alreayd in 5th edition with a huge amount of rules. That came out of 4th edition where there also where many rules as far as I could tell. (I played one game of 4th edition and several game sin 2nd edition.) 6th edition added more bloat on terain rules and introduced a lot of flyers and a crazy psykick phase. 7th edition was more of that I think.

8th edition tuned down the rule sbloat with resulted in a huge amount of FAQ. 9th edition is a more fun (more balanced, better objectives) then 8th edition.

Yes there are a lot of rules to know. The most anoyig part is that none of the rules are stapeled upon the models. Like say a cardgame.

However, you will soon get into it. As an ork player you should just put in the heat and play agresivly. That is what my regular opponent did in 8th edition.

Stratagems are not that comples. Some are there and you rarly use them (desperet break out.) Some you runn into 24/7 like transhuman. (Space marine can not be wounded on better then 4+.) As an Ork you chould just focus on the few stratagems that you end up using. (Tyranids have a good use of all their stratagems, witch makes playing them a nightmare to remember all.)

Just grab some boyz or beats snagga boyz. Grab a psyker with da jump. Move up the field.

I am a dyslectic, so bear with me.

Dyslectics in a text based environment? Dakka is aware of you and sympathises with any troubles you have: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/505863.page

Kronos biovore box fresh sporemines. Denying psykick powers since 2017.

 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






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


Good lord this is possibly the funniest humblebrag I've ever seen on this site "We came from chess" I love it.

The thing that's changed about the game since the early days is primarily the simulationist aspects - the style of play where you put your models down on the table and use the rules as a means 'to see what happens'. Zany tables, damage charts, and rules like the old AP system, penetration system and Instant Death are there to create a few big, unpredictable, exciting moments, while the 8th/9th paradigm trends much more towards average performance and outcomes tend to be more predictable. When I shoot a bunch of flat 3 damage rokkits at something, and my opponent has to roll 5 5+ saves or die, that's a lot more predictable than "and now I roll on the damage table where I have a 1 in 6 chance of instantly ka-blooeying you and a 1 in 6 chance of barely inconveniencing you at all"

The game is far more like Chess now than older editions ever were, and that's probably one of the reasons I'm dissatisfied, because I LIVE for the moments when Pawn makes his armor save and unexpectedly swings back and kills Rook.

feth chess. Just my opinion, moving on.

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

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in es
[DCM]
Secret Inquisitorial Eldar Xenexecutor






your mind

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


Good lord this is possibly the funniest humblebrag I've ever seen on this site "We came from chess" I love it.

The thing that's changed about the game since the early days is primarily the simulationist aspects - the style of play where you put your models down on the table and use the rules as a means 'to see what happens'. Zany tables, damage charts, and rules like the old AP system, penetration system and Instant Death are there to create a few big, unpredictable, exciting moments, while the 8th/9th paradigm trends much more towards average performance and outcomes tend to be more predictable. When I shoot a bunch of flat 3 damage rokkits at something, and my opponent has to roll 5 5+ saves or die, that's a lot more predictable than "and now I roll on the damage table where I have a 1 in 6 chance of instantly ka-blooeying you and a 1 in 6 chance of barely inconveniencing you at all"

The game is far more like Chess now than older editions ever were, and that's probably one of the reasons I'm dissatisfied, because I LIVE for the moments when Pawn makes his armor save and unexpectedly swings back and kills Rook.

feth chess. Just my opinion, moving on.


Yeah, and how the pawn gets to shoot twice twice as far if within two squares of the king IFF you spend gamey points for a whombocombos so long as all of your pieces come from the same set… of course.

People who purposefully misread to take things out of context are people I ignore. Ignored.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/17 20:36:39


   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






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


Good lord this is possibly the funniest humblebrag I've ever seen on this site "We came from chess" I love it.

The thing that's changed about the game since the early days is primarily the simulationist aspects - the style of play where you put your models down on the table and use the rules as a means 'to see what happens'. Zany tables, damage charts, and rules like the old AP system, penetration system and Instant Death are there to create a few big, unpredictable, exciting moments, while the 8th/9th paradigm trends much more towards average performance and outcomes tend to be more predictable. When I shoot a bunch of flat 3 damage rokkits at something, and my opponent has to roll 5 5+ saves or die, that's a lot more predictable than "and now I roll on the damage table where I have a 1 in 6 chance of instantly ka-blooeying you and a 1 in 6 chance of barely inconveniencing you at all"

The game is far more like Chess now than older editions ever were, and that's probably one of the reasons I'm dissatisfied, because I LIVE for the moments when Pawn makes his armor save and unexpectedly swings back and kills Rook.

feth chess. Just my opinion, moving on.


Yeah, and how the pawn gets to shoot twice twice as far if within two squares of the king IFF you spend gamey points for a whombocombos so long as all of your pieces come from the same set… of course.

People who purposefully misread to take things out of context are people I ignore. Ignored.


Cheers friend, can't wait to hear from you the next time the topic of people being so sensitive these days that they can't handle opinions that are even slightly different from their own comes up.




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

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in us
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader





Just like in 40k the first time my opponent pulled a "shoot twice at +1 with all grenades for mortal wounds" wombo combo stratagem, the first time my opponent pulled a castle or en passant on me it felt like they were making stuff up.

To that end, I say we should ban such card game mechanics in chess, and bring it back to 4th edition while we're at it.
   
Made in ca
Regular Dakkanaut



Canada

The biggest mistake any new or returning player can make is purchasing a rulebook or codex. Share one between friends, make copies, or "look" online.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/18 03:59:21


Old World Prediction: The Empire will have Clockwork Paragon Warsuits 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Goose LeChance wrote:
The biggest mistake any new or returning player can make is purchasing a rulebook or codex. Share one between friends, make copies, or "look" online.


Every year the actual value of the Codexes feels like it's going down. I honestly miss the days of paperback codexes and stuff, because at least if they had a bunch of bupkis mistakes, day 1 FAQs, or whatever else... hey, at least it was cheap. :/
   
Made in ie
Ruthless Rafkin





drbored wrote:
Goose LeChance wrote:
The biggest mistake any new or returning player can make is purchasing a rulebook or codex. Share one between friends, make copies, or "look" online.


Every year the actual value of the Codexes feels like it's going down. I honestly miss the days of paperback codexes and stuff, because at least if they had a bunch of bupkis mistakes, day 1 FAQs, or whatever else... hey, at least it was cheap. :/


They also hung around for like 5 years, instead of 3.


 
   
Made in it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

 Sim-Life wrote:


I have a well rounded Tyranids army (about 8k pts I think). It sucks. My necrons (around 4k?) are also well rounded and REALLY suck,


Can't tell about your specific collections but average tyranids and necrons armies are definitely fine at the moment for casual gaming. Necrons aren't even bad in competitive metas and they don't play skew lists.


 
   
Made in ie
Ruthless Rafkin





 Blackie wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:


I have a well rounded Tyranids army (about 8k pts I think). It sucks. My necrons (around 4k?) are also well rounded and REALLY suck,


Can't tell about your specific collections but average tyranids and necrons armies are definitely fine at the moment for casual gaming. Necrons aren't even bad in competitive metas and they don't play skew lists.


Nah, they suck in casual. I know because I played them in casual, and they sucked. You'll probably shoot back with "well, obviously it's you who sucks." to which I say when I'M the one toning lists down for other armies, then it's not me.


 
   
Made in nl
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Blackie wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:


I have a well rounded Tyranids army (about 8k pts I think). It sucks. My necrons (around 4k?) are also well rounded and REALLY suck,


Can't tell about your specific collections but average tyranids and necrons armies are definitely fine at the moment for casual gaming. Necrons aren't even bad in competitive metas and they don't play skew lists.
Really? Necron armies made up of 3x10 warriors, 1 squad of Immortals, Deathmarks, Destroyers, Skorphekh Destroyers and 2 units of Wraiths and Annihilation Barges with maybe a Croissant are doing good in competitive metas?

(no idea of the point, just listen a somewhat random rounded selected of Necron units)

The only somewhat competitive Necron army I have heard of in 9th is the Silver tide and that is very much a skew list based on just throwing more durable bodies on the table then your opponent can deal with.
   
Made in dk
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker






 Ordana wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
 Sim-Life wrote:


I have a well rounded Tyranids army (about 8k pts I think). It sucks. My necrons (around 4k?) are also well rounded and REALLY suck,


Can't tell about your specific collections but average tyranids and necrons armies are definitely fine at the moment for casual gaming. Necrons aren't even bad in competitive metas and they don't play skew lists.
Really? Necron armies made up of 3x10 warriors, 1 squad of Immortals, Deathmarks, Destroyers, Skorphekh Destroyers and 2 units of Wraiths and Annihilation Barges with maybe a Croissant are doing good in competitive metas?

(no idea of the point, just listen a somewhat random rounded selected of Necron units)

The only somewhat competitive Necron army I have heard of in 9th is the Silver tide and that is very much a skew list based on just throwing more durable bodies on the table then your opponent can deal with.

Everything but the Deathmarks, Night Scythe and Annihilation Barge among the units you mentioned has seen a top 4 in 9th, usually, you'll see more skew though. Instead of 2 Wraiths and a Skorpekh Destroyer unit you'll see 3 Wraiths or 3 Skorpekhs. But if you've got 3k or 4k instead of exactly 2k then you're pretty likely to be ok, silver tide isn't much stronger than other lists. I'd say Necrons are a fair faction into most enemies, against competitive AdMech you need a lot of terrain to have a chance, against competitive Drukhari you need weighted dice, not exactly fair.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: