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.

Danny slag wrote:
Or how most of the community hates soup, so GW releases a fix to soup that literally anyone who's spent even 35 seconds with the rule book would know didn't do anything at all about soup. It's like GW doesn't even know their own rules.

Citation required re emphasised element.

Danny slag wrote:

Which wouldn't be so bad if the changes they made had anything at all to do with the feedback from players. it's mind boggling how they say they're listening to players, then they ignore 100% of the issues raised by players and instead release totally goofy changes that leave every player scratching their heads wondering wtf that came from.

How long now have players been saying it's messed up that some factions rules apply to every unit, some apply just to infantry, some apply to everything except certain units with no rhyme or reason.

Or how most of the community hates soup, so GW releases a fix to soup that literally anyone who's spent even 35 seconds with the rule book would know didn't do anything at all about soup. It's like GW doesn't even know their own rules.

I've honestly no idea how they can be so awful at what they do, even by sheer accident you'd think they'd occasionally not miss the mark.

They've done plenty of tweaks based on community feedback. Maybe the opinions think should be at the front aren't as solid as you think.

I'd wager most of the community doesn't hate soup.

Put it to a poll

I'd wager most of the gw fan base thinks 40k and AOS are in a pretty good place as well.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
Yeah, I think this Chaos release might actually be the single largest faction release of 8th edition so far. GW's been pretty good at spreading the love around over the past couple years to be honest, even the factions that haven't gotten big releases have at least gotten small character model updates. Gripes about GW releasing Space Marines and only Space Marines are mostly a holdover from the decisions of a guy who is no longer making decisions for the company. :v

Certain factions have gotten nothing at all. Drukhari for instance.

Wayniac wrote:
Also, do you think that limiting soup/CP/detachments/etc. (any such myriad of changes to end the Loyal 32 powering a Castellan) counts as "balancing tweak" or "seismic change"? In other words, is it something we are likely to see?

I enjoy Warhammer 40k much more in 8th edition than I did previously. Honestly, during 5th, 6th, and 7th edition... the game felt kind of frustrating to play sometimes. It wasn't fun to me, but I enjoyed building and kitbashing and I made an attempt to play... I just played far less, maybe one game a month, sometimes less and I skipped entire years. And I honestly couldn't deal with Formations, for some reason it always felt like I had to get 1 or 2 things that I thought were cool, but had to equip them in a way that wasn't what I liked, and then I had to buy 2 or 3 other things that I simply wasn't excited about... or were only available in Finecast. I just wanna buy the dudes I think look pretty cool, do things that make them look even cooler to me, and then play toy soldier with some rules instead of making noises with my mouth to shoot (which I might still do sometimes).

As far as changes in the future of 40k, I am not sure we're gonna see a 9th edition real soon- maybe an 8.5, or a 9th that will just feel like 8.5 with all the FAQ and CA changes folded in on top of the game as it is now.

But, I do forsee one change. In fact, the way things look... I'd be shocked if we didn't see something like this...

I think we may see limitations on what you can take in your army- not in the way Detachments limit you, but in terms of how many points you're playing and how many points a unit costs. Or maybe something like preventing you from taking more than 50% individual units with 12+ wounds, requiring a game be a certain number of points to take a Super-Heavy, maybe even some kind of thing that Horus Heresy/30k has that requires certain HQ's to take certain units. Hell, I think it would be interesting to work in some kind of 'underdog bonus' using points AND power level, perhaps comparing their disparity (and this could also polish up Power Level and help them refine that more clearly).

I don't think a percentage restriction will work; it's likely that if there was, tournament players would just make the tournament points cost enough to allow those.

There seems to be this pervading mindset that you should be able to play whatever you want, regardless of its impact on the game, and people seem to like the new detachment system because it doesn't force you to take certain units.

When I started 40K, the 'Combined Arms Detachment' of the time was based on percentages.

Worked fine.

Wayniac wrote:
I don't think a percentage restriction will work; it's likely that if there was, tournament players would just make the tournament points cost enough to allow those.

Respectfully, I disagree. I think that time is a big concern in tournaments. So, I think before we see people hosting 3000-point tournaments that last from 10 AM to 2 AM the next day, we'll probably see the guy that brings Bobby Girlyman and 2 Imperial Knights have a hissy fit because now he has to bring an actual army instead of 3 models (silly example, I know, but I recall seeing something like this a long while back).

Wayniac wrote:
There seems to be this pervading mindset that you should be able to play whatever you want, regardless of its impact on the game, and people seem to like the new detachment system because it doesn't force you to take certain units.

While I share that mindset for the most part, with the caveat "with friends, friendly people, in friendly games", there's also a fanatically-dedicated percentage of players that are very competitive and focus entirely on the competitive aspect of the game. I won't say these are bad people, but "different strokes for different folks"... and they tend to be the squeaky wheel that gets the grease, and GW does seem to take interest in what they want.

I mean, deep down we all want to win. I'd say that if it were a glass, and we were making a cocktail- we'd all have one shot of "want to win" by default. But we have different things splashed in with that shot are what gives us our flavors- there are varying amounts of 'have a friendly game', 'show off my cool toys', 'hang out with people and share an activity', 'make new friends', all kinds of things like that- and sometimes those things dilute that "want to win" shot down so much, you can't even really taste it when you take a sip. But there's some guys out there whose cocktail ingredients are one shot of "want to win" and a shot of "and f--k you if you try and stop me", which I'm sure is one of those drinks that is used as a prank, makes you puke, is part of an initiation, or all three of those.

And I think GW knows we all want to win, or at least to do pretty well with our war toys- I mean, it's hard to lose all the time and enjoy playing the game (though it's possible, I did it for about a year and a half- I was TERRIBLE!). And GW knows that it's easier to sell toys that have 'better balanced' or 'improved' rules to make them more effective, it increases the appeal- even to casual players.

So I think that while you and I may be the type to sit down and hash out a game, friendly-like with more focus on having fun with our toys than being geared toward a top-tier tournament style of competitive play... I think we'd also both like if our [insert unit you aren't really happy with right now] were a bit more effective to use.

In the name of the Manperor what are they smoking and please can I have some I need to dull the pain.

The only way you can consider 40k in a "good place" is if you compare it to 7th edition and not to objective reality.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
The only way you can consider 40k in a "good place" is if you compare it to 7th edition and not to objective reality.

In all fairness, you could argue that 'throwing small rocks at bigger rocks' is a game that's in a better place than 7th edition.

Honestly? GW had me at the return of the Genestealer Cult and the New Sisters models. I also love interactions of scale, so having Necromunda, Kill Team and Blackstone ALL receiving ongoing support and regular cross platform integration...

For me personally, this is the best time EVER to be playing Warhammer 40K.

It depends on your perspective really, and what armies you play. I'm a casual marine player who likes how 8th edition plays, but wishes my army was a bit better. There are WAAC eldar players out there who are probably loving their soup army, aside from games where they face knight soup. And then there's longtime necron players who want to drown others then themselves.

I guess the best way to clarify it would be to say it's in a good place in the sense that the game can easily improve from where it is now. It might not be perfect, it might not be balanced, but it's not bad by any means and they can build off of what they have instead of revamping.

40k is about the same as it ever was. It's a sprawling mess of models, rules and interactions. The rule set is tighter than last edition, especially for pick up games but it still requires two people to have a conversation before the game about what kind of experience and level of competition they want. Otherwise one or both players are not likely to have a good time.

I can say that right now, it's been easy for me to get people into playing 40k. I mean, I can sit down with someone who's never played before and teach them how to play Kill-Team if they were hanging out at my house and wanted to kill some time and see what it's all about.

Had I tried to do this in 7th, they'd have just asked if I had an old Algebra textbook to do problems while they listen to the grass grow.

auticus wrote:
Games workshop has proven time and time again that its costumer base will shell out a ton of money for busted rules and do it happily.

AOS, 40k... it doesn't matter. Its fan base is happy with meh balance and encourages rotating your armies if you want to play a game to have a chance at winning.

Its really the company catering to its very large and bloated consumer base and its consumer base rewarding the company for what it does.

There is no reason for them to change.

The push towards overly simplistic rules that make no sense, bust immersion, and are gamey for gamey sense was not only embraced, but openly and fiercely loved by what I perceive to be the majority of gw players.

I don't expect anything to change anytime soon.

I'd like to believe this, but then why have they let their best selling flagship army founder for two years? Maybe Primaris have sold anyway, but imagine what they would have sold if they were also good?

None of the Primaris units are bad outside Reivers to be fair.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
None of the Primaris units are bad outside Reivers to be fair.

Reivers aren't bad if they're used in certain situations.

Very limited situations, and on the rare occasion you use them in that situation and they do what they do best... you'll enjoy that.

Granted, that situation is called "Kill Team on a 3D map with lots of terrain", but at least it's something, right?

I've only been playing this game since mid 2015. At the time it was dying, everywhere. Our local store had about 12 reliable players. People were not happy, and there was a lot of bloat.

Just this past weekend, my local store was full. No available tables. Over 30 people are always there any given Saturday or Sunday playing.

There are about 6-7 more that play throughout the week due to work schedules.

I've seen all kinds of mono codex armies, in fact, not one "allied" army exists in our meta. I've seen quite diverse list and unit choices, I've seen some really creative and fun narrative games.

When I first started playing here, over half the shop had grey plastic armies. I can state that about 70% of our store has a three color minimum now, many others have at the very least a primer, and base color on their models.

From 2015 to 2017 I can estimate I played approximated 40-70 games. From 2018 to the present I can tell you from my log book that I've played over 230 games, 3 of which are AoS (just started) and 5 of which are Titanicus.

It seems like the only places I hear people crying about 8th is online, where echo chambers are much easier to maintain.

Heck, just today a friend of mine argued himself into my argument, by proving his own statement about Knight Soup wrong by pointing out that you don't have to play against it, and that it is okay for that level of competitive 40K to exist.

So, to further expand on my earlier answer, yes I feel the game is in an excellent state. I've had more fun in this edition than I ever had in 7th or in the HH set I briefly played in in 2017. I love my armies, I'm stoked that chaos are getting such awesome looking models. My tyranids have seen more games than they ever did in 7th, they can actually do things this edition! I'm finally painting!

I hope they keep up the amazing work they've done these past three years or so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Drager wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
Yeah, I think this Chaos release might actually be the single largest faction release of 8th edition so far. GW's been pretty good at spreading the love around over the past couple years to be honest, even the factions that haven't gotten big releases have at least gotten small character model updates. Gripes about GW releasing Space Marines and only Space Marines are mostly a holdover from the decisions of a guy who is no longer making decisions for the company. :v

Certain factions have gotten nothing at all. Drukhari for instance.

It. Takes. Time.

We've just completed the codex cycle. This chaos release is the first major release of new models since the Thousand Son, Custodes, Death Guard launch era, not counting GSC. We've seen our first SM character get the primaris treatment. For Godsakes we've even seen GW capitulate to community outcry with the changes that happened to Haarkan Worldclaimer. Also, last I check that Dark Eldar codex is pretty baller. I've been on the receiving end of that a few times and it's quite nasty.

You cannot reasonably expect them to fully update every old model in under two years. It took over a year just to get *most* of the codexes done and out, let alone the Sisters Launch which again, also came from community outcry.

It's pretty damn obvious that 40K is in a good place, and if you think otherwise the numbers are proving you wrong. I doubt every customer is just buying new stuff to sit on their shelf. They're using it, and repeatedly so. Therefore, there must be enjoyment to be had for someone to keep doing this and going back for more. "Good place" and "balance" are not analogous, if people are enjoying their time with 40K, then it's in a good place. How would GW know that people are enjoying their product? Sales.
And let's be honest, the rules are not so far off the tracks that the game is unplayable, it is hyperbole to think otherwise.

People may be using them for things other than 8th. I know I do.

One thing I've come to appreciate is the simplicity of the rules.

Let's put it this way, there's quite a bit you can do with the 40k gameplay system, you can tear it out of being a 'wargame' and fidget around with some stuff and create some pretty fun dungeon crawlers and alternative ways to play.

 bullyboy wrote:
It's pretty damn obvious that 40K is in a good place, and if you think otherwise the numbers are proving you wrong. I doubt every customer is just buying new stuff to sit on their shelf. They're using it, and repeatedly so. Therefore, there must be enjoyment to be had for someone to keep doing this and going back for more. "Good place" and "balance" are not analogous, if people are enjoying their time with 40K, then it's in a good place. How would GW know that people are enjoying their product? Sales.
And let's be honest, the rules are not so far off the tracks that the game is unplayable, it is hyperbole to think otherwise.

Likewise, "popular" does not equal "good".

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
It's pretty damn obvious that 40K is in a good place, and if you think otherwise the numbers are proving you wrong. I doubt every customer is just buying new stuff to sit on their shelf. They're using it, and repeatedly so. Therefore, there must be enjoyment to be had for someone to keep doing this and going back for more. "Good place" and "balance" are not analogous, if people are enjoying their time with 40K, then it's in a good place. How would GW know that people are enjoying their product? Sales.
And let's be honest, the rules are not so far off the tracks that the game is unplayable, it is hyperbole to think otherwise.

Likewise, "popular" does not equal "good".

Then why is it all of a sudden "popular"? Good is subjective. I would say 8th is actually good, it's just not great, which I think many wish it were.

 bullyboy wrote:
It's pretty damn obvious that 40K is in a good place, and if you think otherwise the numbers are proving you wrong. I doubt every customer is just buying new stuff to sit on their shelf. They're using it, and repeatedly so. Therefore, there must be enjoyment to be had for someone to keep doing this and going back for more. "Good place" and "balance" are not analogous, if people are enjoying their time with 40K, then it's in a good place. How would GW know that people are enjoying their product? Sales.
And let's be honest, the rules are not so far off the tracks that the game is unplayable, it is hyperbole to think otherwise.

I went from $0 spent on 40k(in25yrs)to 90% fully painted 470pl of Salamanders in 8th.

So yeah, they be gotta be doin somethin right! I really hope they continue with more new models and high quality products.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
One thing I've come to appreciate is the simplicity of the rules.

Let's put it this way, there's quite a bit you can do with the 40k gameplay system, you can tear it out of being a 'wargame' and fidget around with some stuff and create some pretty fun dungeon crawlers and alternative ways to play.

It's not uncommon to see people pop into my local GW looking for stuff they can use to make a D&D mini of their character

 bullyboy wrote:
Then why is it all of a sudden "popular"? Good is subjective. I would say 8th is actually good, it's just not great, which I think many wish it were.

Because Shiny Marketing to a young male demographic is more important than quality.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
None of the Primaris units are bad outside Reivers to be fair.

Reivers aren't bad if they're used in certain situations.

Very limited situations, and on the rare occasion you use them in that situation and they do what they do best... you'll enjoy that.

Granted, that situation is called "Kill Team on a 3D map with lots of terrain", but at least it's something, right?

It's a whole different game so not really.

If you can procure a bunch of them though, their heads are nice for various models. Also would make for nice bitz on some bases to show your HQ slaughtering them (which I plan to do for one of my HQ dudes once i get a box).

Pleasestop 773029 10386120 wrote:

Literally stop buying 40k then if all of your money is tied up in I or like, pop off your weapons that you can't use and get some left over bits from a friend's bit box. If no one you play with has any extra bits then they are as annoyed with you as I am.

But GK terminators, painted black are Deathwatch terminators with stormbolter and sword. A halbred can easily be made into a power maul.

Incinerators are heavy flamers Or Flamers.

If you didn't bring it up, no one else would, because GK are the exception that proves the rule and honestly arent as bad off as most armies were last edition.

Reading and writing are free, as are a ton of online games.

I tried to cut of part of metal models, as people pointed out to me that termintors with halabards wouldn't be WYSIWYG as DW does have models armed with them. All I achived was destroying the incinerator arm and the shoulder pad on one of my models. I don't know how the bits stuff should work, Plastic and metal don't glue to each other well. Plastic glue doesn't work at all, and super glue means that every transport or falling down the whole thing just snaps at the joint point.

I don't get where you find free reading, here a book costs 12$. You could technically go to the library, and I do that for school, but it is a 2 hour bus trip there and a 2 hour trip back. Plus it does nothing about the money I have stuck in w40k. My sister got a tablet for her confirmation, I got convinced to start w40k. She has good time with her stuff every day. I felt good, up until I started playing non intreduction games

But that is just me. Just because I am not good with writing what I think about GK, doesn't mean they aren't the worse army right now and dont need a fix real bad. That is my problem, not the fact that the army is bad. It is bad already, it is the fact that GW says that no big changes are needed and that everything is great bothers me. Because at worse this means they will never fix GK, and I just wasted all the money I got.

Go mow some lawns to make money and buy something else.

 bullyboy wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
It's pretty damn obvious that 40K is in a good place, and if you think otherwise the numbers are proving you wrong. I doubt every customer is just buying new stuff to sit on their shelf. They're using it, and repeatedly so. Therefore, there must be enjoyment to be had for someone to keep doing this and going back for more. "Good place" and "balance" are not analogous, if people are enjoying their time with 40K, then it's in a good place. How would GW know that people are enjoying their product? Sales.
And let's be honest, the rules are not so far off the tracks that the game is unplayable, it is hyperbole to think otherwise.

Likewise, "popular" does not equal "good".

Then why is it all of a sudden "popular"? Good is subjective. I would say 8th is actually good, it's just not great, which I think many wish it were.

People may or may not be enjoying the 8th edition ruleset, we don't have any strong data on that or on the amount of unique purchasers of GW products. What we know for sure is that since Rountree took over:

GW discovered the internet is a useful marketing tool, and created Facebook pages as well as Warhammer Community where they could control a one-way flow of information.

GW began making unsubstantiated claims such as "the edition you asked for" and "the most balanced Warhammer ever" which people believed, most likely due to the change in leadership and that suddenly, we were hearing anything from them, alongside an intense loathing of 7th edition and a willingness to accept any alternative.

GW developed the habit of using copious amounts of adjectives and exclamation points to prime us to be perpetually excited about their doings.

GW began releasing new models and new rules at the fastest pace in their history.

Investments in new manufacturing technology were made.

Sales have improved dramatically.

Fun is subjective. Good, as in, being well-crafted, is not. Warhammer 40,000 8th Edition is by no means well written regardless of whether a person enjoys playing it or not. And before the inevitable "but it's fun so it must be well written" argument appears, it is possible to dislike something that is well made because it is not to your taste. I don't care for beer, but my preference does not somehow delegitimize local craft breweries that use high-quality ingredients and put lots of effort into brewing the best that they can.





With these discussions it is best to define what a "good" game is in the first place. The criteria I use, more or less, are:


Agency- Gameplay is at its best, whether the ruleset be complex or simple, when the players have many choices to make during gameplay, and those choices matter. Dice-rolling is kept to a minimum. Dice are a resolution mechanism, not a feature of gameplay. Unless you enjoy Yahtzee.

Balance- Equally skilled players have an equal chance at winning. When players are unequal in skill, the more skilled player is more likely to win. Every unit is viable in some situations, auto-takes and never-takes do not exist. Victory is based on the outcome of players' decisions.

Clarity- When reading through the rules, it is obvious how everything works. They are written in a manner that leaves no room for confusion, misinterpretation, or loopholes. ie. "the number of powers a psyker can cast depends on their mastery level" is not clear. "Destroy target nonblack creature" is clear. MTG, for all its many faults, excels in this because the designers take a literal approach when writing rules. Cards do what they say they do- no more, no less.