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.

Lance845 wrote:I don't think anyones on you for optimism. But there is a difference between optimism and blind cultish devotion. You don't look at the game and hope for the best. You shut down any statement of criticism and answer with blind devotion. That's not optimism. It's fanatacism

Very true, but there's also a difference between criticism and shouting curses into an empty void that similarly eludes many other Dakka users. They look at the game and see only the worst, ignoring every other feature. They shut down praise and more reasoned criticism with hyperbole and blind rage. That's not criticism. It's masochism.

Let's not pretend that it doesn't swing both ways.

Okay. You claimed to have data to support your argument. Often refered to as proof. You did not use the word proof. But you said you have data. Are you going to keep dodging the fact that you said unfounded bs and presented it as fact?

Karol wrote:
Because playing fake games with fake armies, and not punishing new players, makes so much more sense and it so much better. They invest in to full armies, think the game is played in a certain way. And as soon as they play their first real game the army evaporation happens. Only now they invested in to a 2000pts army, and have no wiggle room to fix stuff.

When you get tabled in a turn, or practicaly tabled when you play 750 or 1000pts you can do stuf. Maybe buy a different codex, maybe play only kill team , maybe even quit and not invest more.

The wait till 2000pts to show a no longer noob what the game is about is a horrible thing to do. Specialy if they pick a non top tier army.

Obviously, I'm falling into the "that's just your own anecdotal evidence!" here, but judging from other people's comments supporting the same - most players don't buy a 2000 point list right off the top without any prior experience of the game.

Most players buy a small force, somewhere around 500, and get a feel of the game from that. They might even buy a dedicated starter set to do just that with. Because, as you say, even if you get hammered hard in lower point sizes, you can take steps to work around that, or the financial blow, if you feel the game isn't suitable, isn't so crippling - which is why people DON'T start with full armies.

And again, being accommodating of new players is nothing to be scoffed at, and is the best way of letting them gently into the community. We don't throw children into the deepest part of a swimming pool, we teach them to swim going from the shallow end. Any club or group that is unwilling to adapt even slightly to provide measures for new blood to enter is a group not worth joining.

 Lance845 wrote:
Okay. You claimed to have data to support your argument. Often refered to as proof. You did not use the word proof. But you said you have data. Are you going to keep dodging the fact that you said unfounded bs and presented it as fact?

Show me where I said: "I have data"

I'm pretty sure I stick to my opinions and observations on the general health of the hobby as indicators of how much right and wrong it's doing.

Where did I use the 3 words "I have data"?

----

Going back to the discussion. I see comments from people who are unhappy with their army based on performance after having completed 2k points?

1: Did you have no discussion with your local community as you built up the army?
2: What is your reason for collecting the particular army?
3: Why are you not able to arrange games against opponents and lists that aren't too overpowered compared to your particular force?

Karol wrote:
Good for you, my army good fun rules at the very end of 8th, and then corona hit, so I didn't even get to play for it besides 3 games. They 3 games I did have were fun .

I expect you'll have that army for a good chunk of 9th so here's hoping GKs are solid.

Short and snappy.

Nine editions.

All IGOUGO

If you don’t like IGOUGO, why are you playing 40k?

 Ishagu wrote:
I enjoy the game and most of my biggest concerns are being addressed with the new edition. Why would I be critical until I've properly seen all it has to offer?

It's funny how everything I want seems to happen. Must be the power of optimism at play....

Come on Ishagu, just for me, just between us, tell me what you didn't like about 8th that 9th is fixing. It would make me oh so happy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Karol wrote:
Because playing fake games with fake armies, and not punishing new players, makes so much more sense and it so much better. They invest in to full armies, think the game is played in a certain way. And as soon as they play their first real game the army evaporation happens. Only now they invested in to a 2000pts army, and have no wiggle room to fix stuff.

When you get tabled in a turn, or practicaly tabled when you play 750 or 1000pts you can do stuf. Maybe buy a different codex, maybe play only kill team , maybe even quit and not invest more.

The wait till 2000pts to show a no longer noob what the game is about is a horrible thing to do. Specialy if they pick a non top tier army.

Obviously, I'm falling into the "that's just your own anecdotal evidence!" here, but judging from other people's comments supporting the same - most players don't buy a 2000 point list right off the top without any prior experience of the game..

I will tell you as someone who has seen hundreds of players come and go, "Guy bought TONS AND TONS OF POINTS ALL AT ONCE and then found out he bought stuff that didn't work and didn't know how to use any of it and is now super overwhelmed even contemplating trying to paint it" is probably the single most common factor in people quitting the game soon after starting.

I have absolutely seen people buy 2,000 point armies in one single crazy shot. I have seen people absolutely refuse to play any games until they've got 2,000 points, and instead just hang around and build and buy minis. I don't know what it is and I wish I did know the magic words that would make people just stop doing that dumb dumb thing.

Things that needed fixing in my opinion:

-Modifiers went too far and some armies like Guard can end up not being able to interact with units.

-Terrain rules were too bland. I personally didn't have too many issues as my local group has access to large pieces of painted, LoS blocking terrain but I understand not everyone does.

-Reward for mono armies, less incentive to soup up. In 8th there were often no downsides to bringing armies from multiple books, eg Eldar with Harlequins. Now at least it might cost CP.

-Too many FAQs and Erratas outside of the core rules. The edition of 8th that dropped initially felt almost like a Beta after 2 years of updates and core rule additions.

Karol wrote:
I wonder how people imagine the game becoming less deadly, when for all we know the new basic game may end up being 2250pts or better yet it is going to be 1750, but everything had it costs slashed by 2/3.

But this is my first edition switch, so expiriance wise, all I know is based on stories from other.

Who knows maybe everyone is going to play games that are 1500pts in todays army size, or crusade all 9th edition.

I can think of a few ways it could.

A new terrain system that grants more impactful cover more readily would absolutely help

implementation of "long range" penalties would certainly help

Removal of armies starting the game with a big honkin' chunk of CP allowing for you to drop something turn 2 and spend 9 CP on it to charge, fight twice with +1 to wound and +1A per model and rerolling to-hits

A morale system that does less to remove models from the board and more to reduce models' offensive output like it did in previous editions, where units would fall back temporarily when they failed morale rather than die

There are tons of ways you could easily reduce lethality and alpha-strike potential while sticking to the core rules of the game. Hell, you could implement limited alternating activations within an IGOUGO system, the way that Kill Team and Age of Sigmar both do, which would even further limit your potential for super-swingy crazy alpha strikes. In AOS, they do this by having most units be close combat units, and by having units that charge not necessarily go first. Boom, suddenly you need your close combat units to SURVIVE BY HAVING DEFENSES rather than surviving by straight up murderizing everything before the enemy gets to go, and your opponent has the means to meaningfully interact with you even on your turn.

You could even maybe implement Apocalypse's "Units die at the end of the turn" system....sort of...in standard 40k. You wouldn't be able to have the risk/reward aspect of it where you hold saving throw rolls to the end of the turn, which forces the attacking player to determine just how much they want to load wounds to a unit to ensure they take it out, but you could have a system by which units are only removed from the board at the end of the battle round but they still get to act the turn they are "destroyed" and say that you're simulating a simultaneous combat sequence.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Short and snappy.

Nine editions.

All IGOUGO

If you don’t like IGOUGO, why are you playing 40k?

Nailed it.

Its not like 40K was AA for several editions and then switched to IGOUGO leaving some people frustrated. If IGOUGO is a deal-breaker for some gamers, well, then I guess its a deal-breaker for them and they don't play? There are a bunch of wargames that I do not play, and indeed never played. I don't go on sites dedicated to those games and complain about them.

 Ishagu wrote:
Things that needed fixing in my opinion:

-Modifiers went too far and some armies like Guard can end up not being able to interact with units.

-Terrain rules were too bland. I personally didn't have too many issues as my local group has access to large pieces of painted, LoS blocking terrain but I understand not everyone does.

-Reward for mono armies, less incentive to soup up. In 8th there were often no downsides to bringing armies from multiple books, eg Eldar with Harlequins. Now at least it might cost CP.

-Too many FAQs and Erratas outside of the core rules. The edition of 8th that dropped initially felt almost like a Beta after 2 years of updates and core rule additions.

Thank you. Honestly, it does my heart good to know that there was something, anything you did not like.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
And that is indeed part of the problem. GW wants more and more models on the board at any given time to facilitate buying more models. The more units on the table the more abstractions they're going to want to take, while skimping on model-by-model micro management.

That's a whole other issue, GW loves to micromanage the options, the current rules where every single melee weapon has it's own stats being a particular nadir. Even 2nd edition was willing lump knives, clubs and rifle butts into one category (though not swords because swords get parry!). Yet they also want 100+ models on the field.

If they must have both they should have small game and large game rules. In a small game the difference between a power hammer and power pick is VERY IMPORTANT. But in a large game everything becomes either a weapon or power weapon.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Lance845 wrote:I don't think anyones on you for optimism. But there is a difference between optimism and blind cultish devotion. You don't look at the game and hope for the best. You shut down any statement of criticism and answer with blind devotion. That's not optimism. It's fanatacism

Very true, but there's also a difference between criticism and shouting curses into an empty void that similarly eludes many other Dakka users. They look at the game and see only the worst, ignoring every other feature. They shut down praise and more reasoned criticism with hyperbole and blind rage. That's not criticism. It's masochism.

Let's not pretend that it doesn't swing both ways.

I agree and I'd take it further, honestly. It's not even about being 'shut down', it's the binary and extreme polarisation, the devaluing and the dismissal of anything that isn't CHANNELING ALL THE HATE ALL OF THE TIME and anyone challenging that viewpoint, or merely not not accepting it AND AMPLIFYING IT is seen as the enemy and it is extremely frustrating to me. Or that disagreeing with criticism (oftentimes I find criticism of stuff here can be aggressive, extreme and sadly, in my mind, it comes across verging on toxic) or simply the act of not being as offended to the point of apoplectic rage by these things is answering 'with blind cultish devotion' and 'fanaticism'

There's people like me, yourself, Ishagu etc that seem to accept that wargames are limited systems, arent unicorns and can't actually do the impossible tasks people demand of them, that instead value other things, we are happy to work on the front end to mitigate issues (you know... talk to the other guy, maybe accomodate, maybe my even be willing to play or even worse, enjoy taking something that isn't the top tier fotm build) and feel maybe the players themselves have a role to play, and for that, we get called apologists, or 'white knights' or worse. It's disheartening And frustrating to me that sometimes the only valued emotion and response here is the RAGE. Hell, both you and I got told that 'not minding' something is akin to having problems with it.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Short and snappy.

Nine editions.

All IGOUGO

If you don’t like IGOUGO, why are you playing 40k?

Because back in 3rd/4th edition I didn't have 80% of my army blasted away via my opponents alpha strike. Because back in 3rd/4th edition Space Marines actually got to take their saves most of the time. Because in 3rd/4th edition we didn't have enemy armies with a blanket -1 to hit against them.

Because, despite the less than perfect games, I loved the universe and the lore. And then GW had to screw that up to.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Short and snappy.

Nine editions.

All IGOUGO

If you don’t like IGOUGO, why are you playing 40k?

Because back in 3rd/4th edition I didn't have 80% of my army blasted away via my opponents alpha strike. Because back in 3rd/4th edition Space Marines actually got to take their saves most of the time. Because in 3rd/4th edition we didn't have enemy armies with a blanket -1 to hit against them.

I really miss the old days were i wan't scare to put models on the table and i new a unit was going to die maybe 2 at the most. Now i'm lucky if its only 2 units.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
The funny thing is, I think the average person with no history of table top gaming leans towards alternating activations.

Every single time I show this game to friends who want to try it out, they assume we alternate activations. I have to tell them that each player uses their whole army at one time, and they don't seem to understand why it's played that way.

They seem to get it, I don't know why GW doesn't.

Probably because your evidence is anecdotal and doesn't represent a meaningful sample size of anything?

No way, really? My story about my friends playing this game is anecdotal?

When did I say it was a scientific study?

This site is the sample size. There are hundreds of us here showing our real world experiences of the game. If you were doing a study and conducting an interview with multiple people about their experience with 40K would you just tell them their experience is anecdotal and then not process their results? And clearly there are enough of us here who don't like IGOUGO to make a point about changing it.

Just because it's anecdotal doesn't mean it ain't true or doesn't have merit.

I don't need a sample size of 1000 people to tell me that IGOUGO is a dated system, and waiting around 20 min while I get a quarter of my army swept off the board is bad for the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Short and snappy.

Nine editions.

All IGOUGO

If you don’t like IGOUGO, why are you playing 40k?

Because I want a better game than the one we have now.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Short and snappy.

Nine editions.

All IGOUGO

If you don’t like IGOUGO, why are you playing 40k?

Because I want a better game than the one we have now.

Then go play a different game? I like 40K as it is, IGOUGO style, and I'm happy to play it.
If I did not like it, I wouldn't play it, plain and simple.

8th is the best 40k has ever been imo. Or at least the best of all the editions I have ever played. It's so many light years ahead of 7th they are not even comparable.

But it's still crap. The shiniest turd still goes in the toilet.

They made a ton of moves in the right direction. But they didn't go far enough.

The micromanagement of war gear as mentioned. Apoc shows you how to handle the wargear better while opening up significantly more modeling options. The vast maority of stuff can be condenced. We don't need 6 different kinds of power weapons. Just "Power Weapon" and then let people model whatever the hell they want.

The individual model stat line and model to unit interaction. Apocs unit to unit interaction is better. the unit should be shooting not the model. The unit should be fighting, not the model. The time wasted with pile ins and counting models to see who can and cannot fight and then mass rolling dice... it's a waste. Trim it back to units at the scale 40k is at.

Terrain as mentioned. Apoc handles terrain much better. Including occupying it, attacking into and out of it. Shooting into and out of it. And shooting through it.

The idea of stratagems is fine, the implementation needs massive amounts of work. We will see what 9th brings.

Other stuff. Near endless stuff. So much of 40k is bogged down by trying to adhere to it's past instead of moving forward. It's like DnD in that way. Purposefully including bad mechanics just because they existed 50 years ago.

 Lance845 wrote:
8th is the best 40k has ever been imo. Or at least the best of all the editions I have ever played. It's so many light years ahead of 7th they are not even comparable.

But it's still crap. The shiniest turd still goes in the toilet.

They made a ton of moves in the right direction. But they didn't go far enough.

The micromanagement of war gear as mentioned. Apoc shows you how to handle the wargear better while opening up significantly more modeling options. The vast maority of stuff can be condenced. We don't need 6 different kinds of power weapons. Just "Power Weapon" and then let people model whatever the hell they want.

The individual model stat line and model to unit interaction. Apocs unit to unit interaction is better. the unit should be shooting not the model. The unit should be fighting, not the model. The time wasted with pile ins and counting models to see who can and cannot fight and then mass rolling dice... it's a waste. Trim it back to units at the scale 40k is at.

Terrain as mentioned. Apoc handles terrain much better. Including occupying it, attacking into and out of it. Shooting into and out of it. And shooting through it.

The idea of stratagems is fine, the implementation needs massive amounts of work. We will see what 9th brings.

Other stuff. Near endless stuff. So much of 40k is bogged down by trying to adhere to it's past instead of moving forward. It's like DnD in that way. Purposefully including bad mechanics just because they existed 50 years ago.

Again, if you don't like 40K, go play Apoc. To each their own.
There's people like me who like the current 40K ruleset. I'm happy if the new edition stays as close as possible to the current one rules-wise.
There's also people who don't like it and IMHO the solution for them should be simple: don't play it. Just avoid constantly complaining about this and that, drawing parallels with rulesets written years or decades ago.
I was into WHFB and they blew it up. I tried AoS, didn't like it. I gave it a couple of years time, still didn't like it so I've sold everything WHFB I had. And now I don't go in AoS discussions telling everyone how the game they're playing sucks, that the game they like is gak and they're doing everything wrong.

 Sim-Life wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Fine. Sell your armies then and don't post here. Good bye.

If we got rid of all the people who claim [current edition] 40k is an awful game Dakka would lose like 70% of the people who post here.

Nothing lost.

You are entitled to your opinion. And so am I. I do play Apoc exclusively now.

This here is a discussion forum for people to discuss things. If you don't like hearing opinions other than your own you should stop looking at forums and speak to yourself in a mirror. It's the simplest solution after all.

BaconCatBug wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
If you don’t like IGOUGO, why are you playing 40k?

Because back in 3rd/4th edition I didn't have 80% of my army blasted away via my opponents alpha strike. Because back in 3rd/4th edition Space Marines actually got to take their saves most of the time. Because in 3rd/4th edition we didn't have enemy armies with a blanket -1 to hit against them.

So, IGOUGO isn't the main issue, it's the increased lethality.

Don't blame IGOUGO for other issues. If IGOUGO was the issue, you'd have been complaining about it in 3/4th.

Lance845 wrote:We don't need 6 different kinds of power weapons. Just "Power Weapon" and then let people model whatever the hell they want.

Agreed. It breaks my heart to see people break apart their models only to give them the new strongest weapon. While I'm okay with certain weapons (mostly ranged ones) being differentiated in stats, I don't think things like power weapons should be.

The individual model stat line and model to unit interaction. Apocs unit to unit interaction is better. the unit should be shooting not the model. The unit should be fighting, not the model. The time wasted with pile ins and counting models to see who can and cannot fight and then mass rolling dice... it's a waste. Trim it back to units at the scale 40k is at.

Eh, that's if you're playing at the multiple detachments scale. At 500 points, models should be the focus. Which is why, when GW said about 9th about making 40k work at all sizes, I hope they feature some kind of "at <1500 points/75 PL, operate under XYZ rules" and another "at >1500 points/75 PL, operate under ZYX rules". Or, provide multiple rulesets/developments on free core ruleset, and have players decide for themselves what scale to operate on.

Isn't crazy lethality good for GW's bottom line though? In aggregate their customers only have a finite amount of gaming hours to spend. Every time a player spends time moving, shooting or assaulting with a unit, they spend gaming hours on that unit. Obviously if the rules are designed to allow units to be removed first turn before they get to act, they minimize the number of gaming hours spent per unit and therefore the number of gaming hours you get per dollar spent.

They should probably figure out a way to make assembling and painting faster too.

 Lance845 wrote:
You are entitled to your opinion. And so am I. I do play Apoc exclusively now.

This here is a discussion forum for people to discuss things. If you don't like hearing opinions other than your own you should stop looking at forums and speak to yourself in a mirror. It's the simplest solution after all.

I hear the acoustics of empty forums make for excellent echo chambers.

 Lance845 wrote:
This here is a discussion forum for people to discuss things. If you don't like hearing opinions other than your own you should stop looking at forums and speak to yourself in a mirror. It's the simplest solution after all.

Understood, but at the same time, going onto a forum for a game that you either don't play, or have so negative opinions about that you might as well not play it isn't exactly something that should be encouraged.

The standards of "constructive" criticism have slipped.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Short and snappy.

Nine editions.

All IGOUGO

If you don’t like IGOUGO, why are you playing 40k?

GW added a completely new mechanic to 8th in the form of command points and stratagems. What makes that change a valid evolution, despite breaking from the precedent of every prior edition, but wanting a non-IGOUGO turn structure invalid?

A lot of us play because it's the game suited to the models we like, not because it's the best game system we've ever played. For skirmish wargaming, IGOUGO is a relic of the 90s. I was fine with it once, but I have been spoiled by more modern and engaging systems, like Bolt Action's chit-draw, Infinity's direct AA, or World At War's blind activation.

Apocalypse and Kill Team are both different concepts for layering AA onto the 40K turn structure, and I think they both work quite well. Clearly GW is willing to experiment- even if they are reluctant to make such a significant change to their flagship product.

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:
Isn't crazy lethality good for GW's bottom line though? In aggregate their customers only have a finite amount of gaming hours to spend. Every time a player spends time moving, shooting or assaulting with a unit, they spend gaming hours on that unit. Obviously if the rules are designed to allow units to be removed first turn before they get to act, they minimize the number of gaming hours spent per unit and therefore the number of gaming hours you get per dollar spent.

They should probably figure out a way to make assembling and painting faster too.

I don't really understand at all the logic behind this.

Like, maybe I'm wrong here, but I wasn't under the impression that people spent *all* their time playing games, and killing off their own units in order to cram more games in?

I mean, you phrase "moving, shooting or assaulting with a unit" as some kind of waste of "gaming hours", but by moving/shooting/assaulting with that unit, that IS gaming? What would they be doing with those "gaming hours" if not moving/shooting/assaulting?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:
pocalypse and Kill Team are both different concepts for layering AA onto the 40K turn structure, and I think they both work quite well. Clearly GW is willing to experiment- even if they are reluctant to make such a significant change to their flagship product.

Great, so there IS an AA element you can use with the models you like. Why not play Apoc?

I like Kill Team and 40k, but I don't want to make them the same thing. I like my Knights, but I'm not clamouring to use them in Kill Team.

I have played a couple of unit based AA games and they always feel a little extrange for me.


The alternative phases like LOTR does it feels the most inmersive, because it represents how in real life normally both armies are acting as armies at the same time (Unit based AA works best for skirmish games with single model units IMO) . And it feels the more engaging, watchin how your opponent moves, trying to out-manouver it, and it keeps you on the game.

Of all GW games, LOTR is the one I actually felt like I was making tactical movements and those mattered to achieve a win or a defeat. Playing Fantasy, AoS or 40k I don't feel that. I mean, I still have a blast playing them but is more about using the right resources and prioritizing what you are killing, much less tactical.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
This here is a discussion forum for people to discuss things. If you don't like hearing opinions other than your own you should stop looking at forums and speak to yourself in a mirror. It's the simplest solution after all.

Understood, but at the same time, going onto a forum for a game that you either don't play, or have so negative opinions about that you might as well not play it isn't exactly something that should be encouraged.

The standards of "constructive" criticism have slipped.

Entering a thread entitled "9th edition is already dead in the water (IGO/UGO)" to tell the OP about how much you love IGOUGO is the same as me being on the forum to discuss both the state of the game and what direction it is heading in. Everyone is entitled to be here and everyone is entitled to say how they feel about whatever topic they decide to post in. Telling people to just not play the game if they don't like the current state of things is the same as telling people to not participate in discussions with opinions other than their own.

Instead of more or less telling people to feth off you (not YOU Smudge but the people in this discussion who keep falling back on those statements) should have an actual discussion.

IGOUGO wouldnt be so bad if losses are removed at the end of the turn, which happens in apocalypse. There is a damage phase, after shooting and fighting, where sv rolls are made and killed units are removed. But, seeing the phases for 9th, there is nothing like a damage phase, after shooting and fighting.