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.

IMO Marines should have been W2/A2 from the outset and Primaris should have been nothing more than an updated Marine design. But no, instead we got super-Marines. This in a design space so overcrowded that all new models have to be equipped with TCAS.

I think it was a horrible misstep for a variety of reasons, but the fact remains that this is the path GW have chosen. And that being the case, i fear I'll have to oppose adding extra wounds to cult CSMs.

Please don't see this as me saying that Chaos are fine - far from it. Rather, my objection is that if this sort of thing persists then this edition is going to be more 'fixes' than actual content. It'll be like doctors peeling back layer upon layer of bandages only to realise that their patient died months ago and there's now nothing left but a mass of bandages.

I almost think it would be better to instead move into 9th edition and try for some core rules that aren't complete garbage. So that we're not trying to build an entire edition on a foundation of breadsticks.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Can someone post the points costs and statline of the various Cult Marines so we can compare them against other models?

Doubling the durability of a unit for no cost seems like an extremely sloppy, ill conceived way to "fix" a unit.

It's not really doubling the durability, only against D1 damage, but most guns good against marines in general are D2 allready.

Rubric: 4 Guardsmen ppm

Spoiler:

M5 WS3+ BS3+ S4 T4 W1 A1 MW7 SV3+
Includes Infernoboltgun which is 24" Rapid 1 S4 Ap-2 D1
Has an 5++ and lowers D by 1 ignores modifiers for movng an shooting for heavy weapons.

Khorne Berzerkers:4 Guardsmen without chainaxe 1/4th guardsmen most commonly with chain axe.

Spoiler:

M6 WS3+ BS3+ S5 T4 W1 A2 MW7 SV3+
Can fight twice normally. Chainaxe is +1 S and Ap-1. Profits ofcourse from the basic marine Meleebuff. Further gets Chainsword attack aswell.

Plague Marine: 4 Guardsmen

Spoiler:

M5 BS3+ S4 T5 W1 A1 MW7 SV3+
Has 5+++, gains an additional attack for running around with more then normal cuttlery. Gains plague nades, which are frags that reroll 1s to wound and Dirty Shivvs supposedly that also reroll 1 to wound aswell as your average bolter.

Noise Marine: 3.75 Guardsmen . 1 Guardsmen for Sonic blaster. ( the normal bolter just beeing better now thanks to bolter discipline.)

Spoiler:

B6 WS3+ BS3+ S4 T4 W1 A2 MW7 SV3+
Has their random mechanic that if one dies he does a free round of attack before.Including suicide bombing even when within 1" of enemies.

Possesed, Simply here due to the debate above 5 Guardsmen

Spoiler:

B7 WS3+ BS3+ S5 T4 W2 A D3 MW8 SV3+
Is a daemon, baseline -2AP

Measurements in Guardsmen Infantry squads in order to not violate Dakkas rules.

Thank you for this.

I'd argue that Rubrics and Plague Marines get way more durability from this buff. Likely Berserkers too as they're supposed to be used in melee where most successful units have many, low AP attacks rather than a few high AP attacks.

Compared to Nobz, most of these at 2W seem simply better point for point. Berserkers, Rubrics and Plague Marines vastly so, Noise Marines less so but I understand they love themselves a stratagem.

 vipoid wrote:
IMO Marines should have been W2/A2 from the outset and Primaris should have been nothing more than an updated Marine design. But no, instead we got super-Marines. This in a design space so overcrowded that all new models have to be equipped with TCAS.

I think it was a horrible misstep for a variety of reasons, but the fact remains that this is the path GW have chosen. And that being the case, i fear I'll have to oppose adding extra wounds to cult CSMs.

Please don't see this as me saying that Chaos are fine - far from it. Rather, my objection is that if this sort of thing persists then this edition is going to be more 'fixes' than actual content. It'll be like doctors peeling back layer upon layer of bandages only to realise that their patient died months ago and there's now nothing left but a mass of bandages.

I almost think it would be better to instead move into 9th edition and try for some core rules that aren't complete garbage. So that we're not trying to build an entire edition on a foundation of breadsticks.

Understandable conviction really.
But frankly not going to happen. GW will first milk those sweet sweet 8th edition rulesets to sell to you.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Compared to Nobz, most of these at 2W seem simply better point for point. Berserkers, Rubrics and Plague Marines vastly so, Noise Marines less so but I understand they love themselves a stratagem.

Nobz suck though, so why would you compare a unit to them if you want to fix it?

Thank you for this.

I'd argue that Rubrics and Plague Marines get way more durability from this buff. Likely Berserkers too as they're supposed to be used in melee where most successful units have many, low AP attacks rather than a few high AP attacks.

Compared to Nobz, most of these at 2W seem simply better point for point. Berserkers, Rubrics and Plague Marines vastly so, Noise Marines less so but I understand they love themselves a stratagem.

Rubrics and PM get the most out of this, yes. Especially against weapons like lasguns and boltguns. (which indirectly would do something against the stupid doctrine AP that cripples all other 3+ sv armies.)

However berzerks, regardless if 1 or 2 W , still suffer from the lack of movemment shenanigans. And no footsloging isn't really an option imo.

As for noise marines.
Wasting cacophony on noise marines, or indeed even giving them their signature standard weapon (sonic blaster) is just bad. Espcially considering that YOU NEED these Stratagems and points used on your key units to get CSM even on par of some other units effectiveness.

The big winners will be Rubric and Plague marines. Berzerkers don't care and noise marines , well they get a spike in power, but frankly are in such a bad position what with Bolter discipline not even effecting their main weapon if you pay for it and beeing more pricey for the same stats than the more versatile chosen which don't really hit the table often would not really do anything remotely good enough.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Compared to Nobz, most of these at 2W seem simply better point for point. Berserkers, Rubrics and Plague Marines vastly so, Noise Marines less so but I understand they love themselves a stratagem.

Nobz suck though, so why would you compare a unit to them if you want to fix it?

It's honestly a shame what happened to nobs, imo atleast, they are probably the best sculpted Ork mini out there, so that even my delusioned former orkyness had a bunch of them

 vipoid wrote:
I almost think it would be better to instead move into 9th edition and try for some core rules that aren't complete garbage. So that we're not trying to build an entire edition on a foundation of breadsticks.

No game has ever become successful by dropping new rules on a clean slate though.

While sweeping changes are necessary, a new edition of rules with completely reset any progress having a fun an balanced game, plus the vast majority of armies would be stuck with their old rules for at least a year, some for two years.
The only reasons I see for a new edition would be removing IGOUGO, or completely changing how stat lines work. But the later would require another index era, which I doubt would be accepted kindly by most players unless they drop the book nonsense and move to free rules (they wont).

In my opinion most current issues with the game come from what's printed inside codices, and that can be changed without launching a new edition. I also don't think that applying what they've learned to be working in AoS - moving elite infantry to 2W - is a bandage. Iterative changes to a ruleset is how good rule sets are created, your dying patient analogy implies that this is a bad thing, when it's really the only way to move forward.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Compared to Nobz, most of these at 2W seem simply better point for point. Berserkers, Rubrics and Plague Marines vastly so, Noise Marines less so but I understand they love themselves a stratagem.

Nobz suck though, so why would you compare a unit to them if you want to fix it?

It's honestly a shame what happened to nobs, imo atleast, they are probably the best sculpted Ork mini out there, so that even my delusioned former orkyness had a bunch of them

That's what taking away 5++, 5+++, +1 to hit, the ability to reliably kill vehicles and charging from transports does to a unit. Give back all that was taken from them, and they are fixed.

 Jidmah wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Compared to Nobz, most of these at 2W seem simply better point for point. Berserkers, Rubrics and Plague Marines vastly so, Noise Marines less so but I understand they love themselves a stratagem.

Nobz suck though, so why would you compare a unit to them if you want to fix it?

Nobz aren't bad, they just lack focus and are superseded by Boyz generally. They're probably well balanced to be fair.

How do they lack focus? They are an expensive melee specialist unit that fails at killing things in melee and more often than not gets killed by non-combat experts like intercessors.
There is a good reason why no one is running them and it's not just because they don't generate CP.

Agreed, Nobz could do with a drastic cost reduction or some sort of boost to their killiness (or both!). They're a victim of how melee works in 8th though.

 Jidmah wrote:
How do they lack focus? They are an expensive melee specialist unit that fails at killing things in melee and more often than not gets killed by non-combat experts like intercessors.
There is a good reason why no one is running them and it's not just because they don't generate CP.

5 attack dual choppa nobz are OK for their price.

The reason they lack focus is because their melee weapon options are too expensive - both the Big Choppa and Power Klaws are too expensive, weak or both. But I've still seen Nobz taken in competitive lists - taken with kustom shootas and choppa pre index bans if I recall.

Granted this was before the Marine buffs, but are Marines supposes to be the new benchmark now?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Agreed, Nobz could do with a drastic cost reduction or some sort of boost to their killiness (or both!). They're a victim of how melee works in 8th though.

Dunno about a massive reduction - maybe a bit because marines. Pretty killy, too. Maybe base 6 fnp and docs increase fnp by 1.

 Jidmah wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
I almost think it would be better to instead move into 9th edition and try for some core rules that aren't complete garbage. So that we're not trying to build an entire edition on a foundation of breadsticks.

No game has ever become successful by dropping new rules on a clean slate though.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Surely every edition of 40k thus far has done this?

 Jidmah wrote:

The only reasons I see for a new edition would be removing IGOUGO, or completely changing how stat lines work. But the later would require another index era, which I doubt would be accepted kindly by most players unless they drop the book nonsense and move to free rules (they wont).

Removing IGOUGO would open some interesting options but I really don't see it happening.

Regardless, I don't think that those are the only reasons to change editions. I would suggest that one could also change core aspects such as the psychic phase (I don't *hate* the current iteration but it's very flat and doesn't open itself to much thought or strategy) and Stratagems (which I should suggest should be removed and burned in their entirety ). It could also be used to change design philosophies for armies - e.g. not shoving reroll 1 auras/abilities onto everything, and perhaps refining weapon mechanics to reduce some of the pointless randomness and other such.

(I know that people will probably disagree with whether some of the above are necessary - I'm just trying to give some examples of other aspects of the game which are a lot harder to fix retroactively.)

 Jidmah wrote:

In my opinion most current issues with the game come from what's printed inside codices, and that can be changed without launching a new edition. I also don't think that applying what they've learned to be working in AoS - moving elite infantry to 2W - is a bandage. Iterative changes to a ruleset is how good rule sets are created, your dying patient analogy implies that this is a bad thing, when it's really the only way to move forward.

I fear we might have to agree to disagree on that particular point. I'll grant that a lot problems comes from stuff in individual codices, however, I believe a major reason for this is that the core rules are so weak and anaemic that individual codices basically have to do half their work for them.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Understandable conviction really.
But frankly not going to happen. GW will first milk those sweet sweet 8th edition rulesets to sell to you.

True. And even if 9th is released soon, there's also no guarantee that it will be an improvement over 8th.

 vipoid wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
I almost think it would be better to instead move into 9th edition and try for some core rules that aren't complete garbage. So that we're not trying to build an entire edition on a foundation of breadsticks.

No game has ever become successful by dropping new rules on a clean slate though.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Surely every edition of 40k thus far has done this?

Yes, and for that reason we are looking at a two year old game now, with three decades of experience wasted. If they had continuously improved 3rd edition without throwing out the baby with the tub every few years, we would be looking at a game with a lot less basic design mistakes.

 Jidmah wrote:
Regardless, I don't think that those are the only reasons to change editions. I would suggest that one could also change core aspects such as the psychic phase (I don't *hate* the current iteration but it's very flat and doesn't open itself to much thought or strategy) and Stratagems (which I should suggest should be removed and burned in their entirety ).

That's just change for the sake of change though. There is no actual reason to do that.

It could also be used to change design philosophies for armies - e.g. not shoving reroll 1 auras/abilities onto everything, and perhaps refining weapon mechanics to reduce some of the pointless randomness and other such.

None of that requires a new edition though, just new codices. You could even errata to the worst offenders - re-roll ones isn't bad until you have to do it for every one your army ever rolls.

 Jidmah wrote:

In my opinion most current issues with the game come from what's printed inside codices, and that can be changed without launching a new edition. I also don't think that applying what they've learned to be working in AoS - moving elite infantry to 2W - is a bandage. Iterative changes to a ruleset is how good rule sets are created, your dying patient analogy implies that this is a bad thing, when it's really the only way to move forward.

I fear we might have to agree to disagree on that particular point. I'll grant that a lot problems comes from stuff in individual codices, however, I believe a major reason for this is that the core rules are so weak and anaemic that individual codices basically have to do half their work for them.

I think I understand where our disagreement comes from - when you are talking about a new edition, you mean new books for everyone. I assumed you just meant dropping a new BRB. The thing is, we just barely got dones "new books for everyone" for this edition until sisters drop, and the time for armies who were near the end of the line (like orks) was anything but fun.

True. And even if 9th is released soon, there's also no guarantee that it will be an improvement over 8th.

If 9th gets released, I wouldn't expect anything but minor changes, kind of like 6th=>7th. They are not going to kill the most successful edition ever.

 Jidmah wrote:

True. And even if 9th is released soon, there's also no guarantee that it will be an improvement over 8th.

If 9th gets released, I wouldn't expect anything but minor changes, kind of like 6th=>7th. They are not going to kill the most successful edition ever.

They're just going to stack bloat on top of it until it falls over and they need to reboot it again, the way they've done with every edition.

Pretty much every issue we're seeeing in 8th is downstream of a few system wide rules changes + new features that weren't adjusted for.

1) The change to AP fundamentally altered the effectiveness of certain weapons and save values. In general, good armor saves got less efficient, and lots of small arms got less effective at killing hordes. Bolters used to completely ignore 5+ saves. Anything short of plasma didn't alter a Marine's chance to save against it.

2) Massive increases in firepower from a variety of sources with few increases to durability (auras, strats, etc)

3) Reduction of value of melee due to greater ability to kill it at range, reduced efficiency of transports, lack of ability to lock in close combat

4) More options for anti-everything weaponry made possible by the changes to vehicles and restatting of certain weapons (why is plasma s7 and overchaged s8? It should be s6 and s7)

5) The loss of effectiveness of anti horde weapons due to the AP changes, blast template changes, and other changes that lead to units needing to clump up less (deep strike doesn't force a clump, you can disembark from transports in a wider spread, and nobody uses transports anyway). A flamer template used to reliably hit 5+ units when shooting hordes and ignore their armor, now it averages 3.5 and they get armor saves.

The result of all this is that infantry roles have gotten totally scrambled and generally lost. Back in, say, 5th edition, there was a clear delineation between horde infantry, middle ground, and heavy infantry, with regular marines kind of in the middle of middle and heavy. In this old balance, small arms fire was effective at killing models off hordes, but not killing them point for point. But the right special weapon in the right place was super effective. And massed small arms from a horde wasn't efficient at killing MeQs, but with the right special weapons mixed in, it could work. Against heavy infantry the small arms was even less effective, but the special weapons more effective. And the weapons that were good for killing heavy infantry could also hurt light vehicles, but not heavy ones.

All of this nuance, the counter system and tradeoffs of different loadouts is now gone. The same weapons that kill horde infantry kill heavy infantry very effectively. Plasma kills heavy infantry even MORE effectively. And kills heavy vehicles. And hey, its not even that ineffective against hordes, point for point.

Most of these issues with unit balance come from the loss of these proper roles. To get them restored would mean doing something like giving MeQs 2W base (or defensive buffs that are equivalent), and putting heavy infantry to 3 or even 4w. Even a bunch of non-meq heavier infantry could use a 2nd wound. Like Incubi and aspect warriors even.

I don't for one want to see any more changes to 8th. It already costs a "new" player about $100 in books alone, before he even cracks a box on a model. BRB 50. Space Marines. 30. with tax depending on your state it's around 100. That's if they DONT go into the special chapters that are HEAVILY pushed on them by marketing.

Then he needs to buy faqs, CAs, and other special books. No, 8th is too bloated as is. I've seen it in stores, where a kid comes in because he wants to get into the hobby. But he can't play without the books, and the models, and the dice, and our special paints, and heres a cup for holding water that costs 8 bucks.

Kid walks out.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I don't for one want to see any more changes to 8th. It already costs a "new" player about $100 in books alone, before he even cracks a box on a model. BRB 50. Space Marines. 30. with tax depending on your state it's around 100. That's if they DONT go into the special chapters that are HEAVILY pushed on them by marketing.

Then he needs to buy faqs, CAs, and other special books. No, 8th is too bloated as is. I've seen it in stores, where a kid comes in because he wants to get into the hobby. But he can't play without the books, and the models, and the dice, and our special paints, and heres a cup for holding water that costs 8 bucks.

Kid walks out.

Yeah it's a big problem. More and more its looking like the only way for them to get out of this mess is a living, online ruleset. Preferably free. But we've all known this for years.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:


Then he needs to buy faqs, CAs, and other special books. No, 8th is too bloated as is. I've seen it in stores, where a kid comes in because he wants to get into the hobby. But he can't play without the books, and the models, and the dice, and our special paints, and heres a cup for holding water that costs 8 bucks.

Kid walks out.

I also like to make up stories on the internet.

Models dont need to be painted.
A full army is not required.
Supplements aren't needed to play. Nor are FAQs or CA.

D6 dice are super rare though.

It's a little ridiculous that craft this straw man narrative of a kid who instantly needs to be in the competitive scene to enjoy the hobby.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

True. And even if 9th is released soon, there's also no guarantee that it will be an improvement over 8th.

If 9th gets released, I wouldn't expect anything but minor changes, kind of like 6th=>7th. They are not going to kill the most successful edition ever.

They're just going to stack bloat on top of it until it falls over and they need to reboot it again, the way they've done with every edition.

Wash. Rinse. Repeat. Cash the %$#@ing check.

 Jidmah wrote:

Yes, and for that reason we are looking at a two year old game now, with three decades of experience wasted. If they had continuously improved 3rd edition without throwing out the baby with the tub every few years, we would be looking at a game with a lot less basic design mistakes.

I don't disagree.

Unfortunately, newer editions tend to be sidegrades of old ones, rather than actual improvements.

 Jidmah wrote:

That's just change for the sake of change though. There is no actual reason to do that.

Once again I have to disagree. Stratagems are nothing but worthless clutter that turn the game into MTG. 40k has survived without them for 7 editions so I really don't see why they are so desperately needed in 8th, save perhaps to make it feel less shallow. As for the psychic phase, are you trying to argue that a complete lack of any depth or strategy is somehow a good thing? Because that seems a strange argument to make.

 Jidmah wrote:

None of that requires a new edition though, just new codices. You could even errata to the worst offenders - re-roll ones isn't bad until you have to do it for every one your army ever rolls.

Okay. But now we're basically changing everything *except* the BRB. Why not take one more step and fix the abysmal core rules, rather than trying to endlessly patch everything else?

 Jidmah wrote:

I think I understand where our disagreement comes from - when you are talking about a new edition, you mean new books for everyone. I assumed you just meant dropping a new BRB.

Indeed. I wasn't just talking about a new BRB.

 Jidmah wrote:
The thing is, we just barely got dones "new books for everyone" for this edition until sisters drop, and the time for armies who were near the end of the line (like orks) was anything but fun.

Are Ork players having fun currently? Serious question.

Regardless, I appreciate that many codices haven't been out for long - hence why I said this would be an unpopular opinion.

However, the current state of books is an absolute mess. We've got rules scattered across God knows how many codices, faqs, designer's commentaries, CA, expansions, supplements etc. We've got armies with 1st edition codices, we've got armies with 2nd edition codices that are just compilations, we've got an army with a 2nd edition codex that made sweeping changes, we've got armies that are still waiting for any codex at all. And it's clear that the bloat is only going to get worse with yet more supplements already on the way.

Just to be clear - I know 9th isn't going to happen any time and even if it did it would improve bugger-all because GW would just make the same mistakes they always make, so really it's academic ad this point.

 Jidmah wrote:

If 9th gets released, I wouldn't expect anything but minor changes, kind of like 6th=>7th. They are not going to kill the most successful edition ever.

Maybe they could just make it a compilation edition.

 Jidmah wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

In my opinion most current issues with the game come from what's printed inside codices, and that can be changed without launching a new edition. I also don't think that applying what they've learned to be working in AoS - moving elite infantry to 2W - is a bandage. Iterative changes to a ruleset is how good rule sets are created, your dying patient analogy implies that this is a bad thing, when it's really the only way to move forward.

I fear we might have to agree to disagree on that particular point. I'll grant that a lot problems comes from stuff in individual codices, however, I believe a major reason for this is that the core rules are so weak and anaemic that individual codices basically have to do half their work for them.

Yes this is why fixing codexes by themselves isn’t effective. Right now the game is about managing command points and various aura / trait bonuses. Classic fantasy had a core mechanic if getting flank charges and other combat rez bonuses. Epic has blast markers and activation rolls. 40k has command points. If you cleaned up the codexes and didn’t have an archipelago of stratagems and CO batteries you would have a really hollowed out game.

There’s no game unless 40k has some setting appropriate replacement for medieval block formations, 6mm epic blast tokens, or the bs accounting game that is 8th edition command points.

Going back to the original topic, one issue I see is that giving an extra wound to Cult Marines - and only Cult Marines - would seem very arbitrary.

I could maybe see an argument for Plague Marines having an extra wound (given that bloated, hard-to-kill monstrosities are Nurgle's thing), but Berzerkers or Noise Marines having twice as many wounds as CSMs seems like something of a head-scratcher.

 vipoid wrote:
Going back to the original topic, one issue I see is that giving an extra wound to Cult Marines - and only Cult Marines - would seem very arbitrary.

I could maybe see an argument for Plague Marines having an extra wound (given that bloated, hard-to-kill monstrosities are Nurgle's thing), but Berzerkers or Noise Marines having twice as many wounds as CSMs seems like something of a head-scratcher.

Better would be if chosen aswell get it as a neutral option.

But with that the baseline troops still remain an issue, the elite choices also still remain one, even noise marines have still one.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
[

I also like to make up stories on the internet.

Models dont need to be painted.
A full army is not required.
Supplements aren't needed to play. Nor are FAQs or CA.

D6 dice are super rare though.

It's a little ridiculous that craft this straw man narrative of a kid who instantly needs to be in the competitive scene to enjoy the hobby.

okey how many games are people going to play against your 750pts army, when you have the wrong rules. Or try to do illegal stuff, because you read it in your codex? 2-3 times, and that is a big maybe . After that everyone expects you to at least use the proper rules. finding someone to play those under 2000pts games is your problem. Even if you start with people you know, all it takes for the whole thing to break is them getting units for their armies faster then you, they aren't going to wait and play 750pts when they have 1500 or are ready for the real games with 2000.

At the same time with some other games you don't have to start with an initial buy in of 100+$ in books Some games cost less then what GW makes people pay in books.

 vipoid wrote:
Once again I have to disagree. Stratagems are nothing but worthless clutter that turn the game into MTG. 40k has survived without them for 7 editions so I really don't see why they are so desperately needed in 8th, save perhaps to make it feel less shallow. As for the psychic phase, are you trying to argue that a complete lack of any depth or strategy is somehow a good thing? Because that seems a strange argument to make.

That is under the unproven assumption that all psychic powers and stratagems actually lack any depth or strategy. Let's not argue that in that in this thread.

Okay. But now we're basically changing everything *except* the BRB. Why not take one more step and fix the abysmal core rules, rather than trying to endlessly patch everything else?

My point was that none of the things actually are in the core rules. You could fully re-write the entire game into new turn orders, new psychic powers and without stratagems and marines would still have codices full of re-roll everything, all the time.

Are Ork players having fun currently? Serious question.

Most were until SM 2.0 happened. There are always people who will never stop complaining and those whose collection/favorite models got invalidated by an edition change, but in general orks are were in a very good place from casual to top competitive.

However, the current state of books is an absolute mess. We've got rules scattered across God knows how many codices, faqs, designer's commentaries, CA, expansions, supplements etc. We've got armies with 1st edition codices, we've got armies with 2nd edition codices that are just compilations, we've got an army with a 2nd edition codex that made sweeping changes, we've got armies that are still waiting for any codex at all. And it's clear that the bloat is only going to get worse with yet more supplements already on the way.

Just to be clear - I know 9th isn't going to happen any time and even if it did it would improve bugger-all because GW would just make the same mistakes they always make, so really it's academic ad this point.

This was pretty much the point I was trying to make
A new edition will just have GW make the same mistakes all over again, and we lose any progress they have made during this edition.

They also really need to move to a living online rule set... half the bloat issue comes from needing to buy a book because you got two new stratagems.
There is this russian webpage which does an awesome job at proving all of 40k's rules within seconds - whether they are from the BRB, codex, supplement, white dwarf or some obscure blackstone fortress expansion. GW could just do the same. Multiple people have even expressed willingness to pay for something like that regularly.

Karol wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
[

I also like to make up stories on the internet.

Models dont need to be painted.
A full army is not required.
Supplements aren't needed to play. Nor are FAQs or CA.

D6 dice are super rare though.

It's a little ridiculous that craft this straw man narrative of a kid who instantly needs to be in the competitive scene to enjoy the hobby.

okey how many games are people going to play against your 750pts army, when you have the wrong rules. Or try to do illegal stuff, because you read it in your codex? 2-3 times, and that is a big maybe . After that everyone expects you to at least use the proper rules. finding someone to play those under 2000pts games is your problem. Even if you start with people you know, all it takes for the whole thing to break is them getting units for their armies faster then you, they aren't going to wait and play 750pts when they have 1500 or are ready for the real games with 2000.

At the same time with some other games you don't have to start with an initial buy in of 100+$ in books Some games cost less then what GW makes people pay in books.

This is what you people dont understand. There is a whole universe of people playing in their garage with friends that dont give a gak and will never see a tournament.

There are more who are in grow leagues collecting and learning.

This concept that everyone needs to be fully up and running competitively to enjoy the game isn't true in the slightest.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And if you truly enjoy the hobby you dont act like an absurd bell end in an attempt to drive them away.

I built my armies over 25 years.

If you think the hobby isn't worth it then stop playing.

 Jidmah wrote:
A new edition will just have GW make the same mistakes all over again, and we lose any progress they have made during this edition.

Right! Didn't we see the "free rules" drama already in 7th once when formations started coming out?

As far as I know 7th had GW charge peope up to $20 for single-page PDFs. But I dropped the game right after orks got their "decurion", which was just two pages of "feth you!" with ork font.

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
A flamer template used to reliably hit 5+ units when shooting hordes and ignore their armor, now it averages 3.5 and they get armor saves.

Uh, what?

It used to average 1-2 units if enemy knew what he was doing, spreading his 4 pts models to maximum coherency and forming single file and other convoluted formations which took frakking forever. Today, you not only don't have to worry about this nonsense, you also don't get big fat ZERO hits (because you couldn't place template without clipping 0.01 mm of your other model base), if you had a chance to fire your flamer at all because being shortest range weapon in the squad, it was also first to go due to front casualties first rule. Nostalgia glasses much?

Funny you mention armor saves, too, because that was often very off-putting thing to face. I still remember how well IG player I was teaching how to play 40K took the news my deep struck heavy flamer not only wounds his command squad on 2+, instead of 3+ he was expecting, but AP4 meant his lovingly converted grenadiers (upgraded to carapace to have save from SM weapons) get no save at all despite standing in cover - just stared at me for a bit hearing the whole squad was vaporized without any interaction. In 8th edition, I'd at least not felt like I just kicked a puppy.

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
But the right special weapon in the right place was super effective.

You mean 0% effective as tactical squad could only shoot their melta at the tank if all other bolter dudes stood and cheered him while ignoring infantry all around them, if you actually wanted to fire bolters the melta guy just stood there slack jawed suddenly forgetting what the trigger is

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
Plasma kills heavy infantry even MORE effectively. And kills heavy vehicles. And hey, its not even that ineffective against hordes, point for point.

Throw away these trash nostalgia googles, you act like plasma didn't already did all that (and more) in past editions. Spoiler alert - it did. Funnily enough, in 8th armour does more against plasma it ever did, completely invalidating the above, vehicles are also more resilent because with AP2 and rapid fire it was much easier to fish for wrecked or explodes than to chew through pile of wounds vehicles have now...

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Then he needs to buy faqs

Man, when GW paywalled WC and their download section? I totally missed that

Or you know, instead of dumb hyperbole, you can give the kid the FREE rules available in every GW store, direct them to wahapedia/battlescribe to make his first army, and only tell him to buy books as an afterthought once he/she collects like 500-1000 points. But that would have spoiled the narration, eh?

 Irbis wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Then he needs to buy faqs

Man, when GW paywalled WC and their download section? I totally missed that

What's Chapter Approved?