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.

I am getting back into 40k, so is 9th ed any good?

I first jumped in when 7th ed was current but didn't quite get to the point of actually gaming when 7th was upstaged by 8th. I was nonplussed about buying more books so I sort of lost interest a bit since. So now 9th has been out for a bit I am torn between trying to make some use of my old 7th ed books by playing some retro hammer or getting down with what is hip with the kids now, that being 9th.

9th, so far I have found to be probably the best edition since 5th. The emphasis on objective games has lead to a lot of games that were closer, or even pulling from behind since it's not all about killing. I've really been enjoying it so far.

If you are going to play 9th, I'd start by removing everything you know about 7th, because almost none of it is going to apply. It's a very drastic rework of the core system, and stuff like Vehicle armor doesn't exisit anymore.

I think you'll really enjoy it once you start getting a few games under your belt. One thing I liked is that there are diffrent missions and board sizes for the size of the games now. Playing a few combat patrol games at 500 points is a pretty great way to get the hang of the rules.

Crusade also seems to be a pretty big hit locally, so if you enjoy narrative that aspect is around for you too.

So yeah, 9th is a lot of fun and you should start playing it (Safely of course) as soon as you can!

 Sasori wrote:
9th, so far I have found to be probably the best edition since 5th. The emphasis on objective games has lead to a lot of games that were closer, or even pulling from behind since it's not all about killing. I've really been enjoying it so far.

If you are going to play 9th, I'd start by removing everything you know about 7th, because almost none of it is going to apply. It's a very drastic rework of the core system, and stuff like Vehicle armor doesn't exisit anymore.

I think you'll really enjoy it once you start getting a few games under your belt. One thing I liked is that there are diffrent missions and board sizes for the size of the games now. Playing a few combat patrol games at 500 points is a pretty great way to get the hang of the rules.

Crusade also seems to be a pretty big hit locally, so if you enjoy narrative that aspect is around for you too.

So yeah, 9th is a lot of fun and you should start playing it (Safely of course) as soon as you can!

That's encouraging. I guess I will do that then.

Yes, 9th is good.

9th in many ways built and improved on 8th. 8th looking back seems like the public beta test for 9th ed.

GW has an official tournament packet again, which is actually rather good, in the Chapter Approved 2020. I have been playing those mission a lot over the last few months and I have found them to be really good.

Also in 9th GW added a new narrative system in Crusade. It has some RPG style mechanics as your gain experience and upgrades for your units. All the codexs released in 9th ed will have army unique crusade rules. The missions for crusade are also rather fun.

You're going to get a lot of different responses to this question. I'll share mine...

Personally, I think 40K was "best" back in 5th edition. It was not as complex or fussy as 7th edition, but not as sanitized (and as oddly bloated) as 9th edition is.

FWIW, 8th and 9th edition is a HUGE change from the trajectory the game was on for nearly 20-years (3rd edition to 7th edition). Some people like the new direction more, but others don't. The core rules are admittedly more simple now (especially in comparison to 7th), but much of the gameplay depth that I enjoyed has been removed and replaced with things that I don't enjoy as much. For example:

- Removed vehicle armor facings and vehicle damage tables. Vehicles are just normal units with toughness and lots of wounds now.

- Morale greatly simplified, and failing morale tests just removes models instead of causing fallback moves, regroup moves, etc.

- Shooting is much more lethal, with individual models able to fire individual weapons at whatever they want. There are less interesting choices and tradeoffs to make now.

- While the rules are simpler, the game is now bloated with rules for stratagems and a whole command point resource system, a ridiculous number of units and weapon types.

- The 9th edition missions are pretty good seeming, except for a rather significant first player advantage (which has plagued all of 8th and 9th to varying degrees).

All in all, 9th edition gameplay feels less about the choices and tactics you employ on the battlefield. Instead, your success seems to be even more about how well you built your army roster and how well you can remember and use dozens of stratagems over the course of the game. It's not what I want out of the game.

So.... my group has gone back to playing a heavily modified version of 5th edition (ProHammer, see the signature) which we've made compatible with all codexes from 3rd-7th edition. Players can use what they want and the modified rules makes it all work together. You can get a 5th edition book used for cheap, and still use your 7th edition codexes that you have and go to town.

I hope it sticks around for a bit longer than the last few editions. As it is I am bit glad I skipped 8th edition given it did not last any longer than 7th did.

 SolarCross wrote:
I hope it sticks around for a bit longer than the last few editions. As it is I am bit glad I skipped 8th edition given it did not last any longer than 7th did.

Honestly - that's another reason why my group went back to playing 5th. 5th edition is "done" and complete. And with our rules letting us use all codexes from 3rd-7th edition, we don't have the frustration of getting all invested in the latest edition just for it to be rendered obsolete and have to buy a mountain of rulebooks all over again in two years. Which you will likely have to do if trying to keep up with the latest. Plenty of people clearly enjoy being on the bleeding edge, but I simply don't play enough for it to be worth trying to keep up.

In response to earlier posts, the 9th edition missions are, with a few tweaks, pretty darn good. They can also be adapted and use with earlier editions of the game with minimal adjustment needed. So that, in itself, is not a reason to get invested in 9th edition entirely. Just a thought...

 Mezmorki wrote:
You're going to get a lot of different responses to this question. I'll share mine...

Personally, I think 40K was "best" back in 5th edition. It was not as complex or fussy as 7th edition, but not as sanitized (and as oddly bloated) as 9th edition is.

FWIW, 8th and 9th edition is a HUGE change from the trajectory the game was on for nearly 20-years (3rd edition to 7th edition). Some people like the new direction more, but others don't. The core rules are admittedly more simple now (especially in comparison to 7th), but much of the gameplay depth that I enjoyed has been removed and replaced with things that I don't enjoy as much. For example:

- Removed vehicle armor facings and vehicle damage tables. Vehicles are just normal units with toughness and lots of wounds now.

- Morale greatly simplified, and failing morale tests just removes models instead of causing fallback moves, regroup moves, etc.

- Shooting is much more lethal, with individual models able to fire individual weapons at whatever they want. There are less interesting choices and tradeoffs to make now.

- While the rules are simpler, the game is now bloated with rules for stratagems and a whole command point resource system, a ridiculous number of units and weapon types.

- The 9th edition missions are pretty good seeming, except for a rather significant first player advantage (which has plagued all of 8th and 9th to varying degrees).

All in all, 9th edition gameplay feels less about the choices and tactics you employ on the battlefield. Instead, your success seems to be even more about how well you built your army roster and how well you can remember and use dozens of stratagems over the course of the game. It's not what I want out of the game.

So.... my group has gone back to playing a heavily modified version of 5th edition (ProHammer, see the signature) which we've made compatible with all codexes from 3rd-7th edition. Players can use what they want and the modified rules makes it all work together. You can get a 5th edition book used for cheap, and still use your 7th edition codexes that you have and go to town.

I will have to check that out, that sounds really good. I actually deal in old warhammer books on ebay ( https://solarcrossgames.co.uk/dosh/ebaystorepage - shameles self-promotion sorry) so I actually have access to all the old books already. The challenge for me is finding someone to play with I think, that's the only reason I am really looking at 9th. I guess in general people tend to play whatever is current and of course you have to play something current in a GW store. (Although they are all shut now because of lockdown, lol).

 SolarCross wrote:
I hope it sticks around for a bit longer than the last few editions. As it is I am bit glad I skipped 8th edition given it did not last any longer than 7th did.

I do as well, 9th so far seems solid enough that it does not need a revamp from the core rules anytime soon. If they make some adjustments in the next CA2021 GT pack for the missions/secondaries that should be all they really need.

That being said, new edition launches are big money, but I'd really like if it stuck around for more than 4 years.

Yeah, playing older editions has it's issues with finding willing players. It's usually local GW store policy whether they allow older editions to be played or not. My local store said they don't care, so long as all the models are citadel miniatures and the right codex books are used. House rules are fine with them (but not all stores will be this way).

Finding players is the bigger issue. If you're looking to bring someone else into the hobby and get them going - you could of course see if they are willing to try an older edition that you already have the stuff for and are more familiar with. Bringing in new players and starting with an older version is probably easier than trying to convince an existing player invested in 9th to go back in time.

 Mezmorki wrote:
Yeah, playing older editions has it's issues with finding willing players. It's usually local GW store policy whether they allow older editions to be played or not. My local store said they don't care, so long as all the models are citadel miniatures and the right codex books are used. House rules are fine with them (but not all stores will be this way).

Finding players is the bigger issue. If you're looking to bring someone else into the hobby and get them going - you could of course see if they are willing to try an older edition that you already have the stuff for and are more familiar with. Bringing in new players and starting with an older version is probably easier than trying to convince an existing player invested in 9th to go back in time.

I've printed off Prohammer and will look it over as I read 5th ed. I know lots of vets say 5th was the best but even though I have it in stock I have yet to read it or play it.

The best chance of cultivating a new player would be to get my son and / or wife into it. So far they are being a bit stubborn. They will coo and marvel at my paint jobs but any attempt to get them to throw some dice around with me is met with apathy and bewilderment.

My best hope for getting into the gaming side of things will be GW stores and the local club I fear. Neither are active now because of lockdowns and even then I fear it will be 9th or nothing.

The ProHammer rules are in a fairly constant state of minor tweaking and adjusting, but I did just finish making a bunch of changes yesterday that I want to leave in place for a while for more testing. You printed it at a good moment

My group has been playing games using Tabletop Simulator (amazing!) to play games virtually due to the Pandemic. We're actually playing more than we were before hand since it's so easy, we can save our games and come back to them, etc. Pretty amazing - although no substitute for the real game and hand painted mini's.

I taught the game to my nephews this summer (10 and 12 years old) using ProHammer and they had a good time. Although one of them asked for Indomitus for XMAS so they might be getting pulled into the new edition! But they can always use the new miniatures with the older rules.

I've been tempted to maybe make a ProHammer version that uses 9th edition as a base - so that you can use the new style codexes and stats and options but with someone more similar to the older rules in terms of gameplay. But that's a longer term project!

For ProHammer 2.0, I want to fill in the gaps in the ruleset so that it can stand completely alone and doesn't need to reference earlier rulebooks at all. It'll get there eventually.

I really like 9th so far. I'm just annoyed at the sheer amount of erratas and other stuff that you need, beyond the basic rulebook and a codex. We're pretty early into the edition for the rules to already be such a mess.

 Mezmorki wrote:
The ProHammer rules are in a fairly constant state of minor tweaking and adjusting, but I did just finish making a bunch of changes yesterday that I want to leave in place for a while for more testing. You printed it at a good moment

My group has been playing games using Tabletop Simulator (amazing!) to play games virtually due to the Pandemic. We're actually playing more than we were before hand since it's so easy, we can save our games and come back to them, etc. Pretty amazing - although no substitute for the real game and hand painted mini's.

I taught the game to my nephews this summer (10 and 12 years old) using ProHammer and they had a good time. Although one of them asked for Indomitus for XMAS so they might be getting pulled into the new edition! But they can always use the new miniatures with the older rules.

I've been tempted to maybe make a ProHammer version that uses 9th edition as a base - so that you can use the new style codexes and stats and options but with someone more similar to the older rules in terms of gameplay. But that's a longer term project!

For ProHammer 2.0, I want to fill in the gaps in the ruleset so that it can stand completely alone and doesn't need to reference earlier rulebooks at all. It'll get there eventually.

I have entertained the idea of doing a "patch" for 7th edition which would aim to fix its balance issues and do up some datasheets for the newer releases. I do feel weirdly attached to that edition given I never really had a chance to play it. And as you say old editions are not in flux the way new editions are, and after years of field testing by the community the issues are sort of well known. Then again I am not sure I could justify spending the time doing that given monetising the labour would be iffy with GW jealously guarding their IP.

The other thing I thought I might do is to write a new game from scratch that can use the same models. That way there is a saleable IP at the end of the work.

If 9th is good though then maybe I should just go with that and save myself the trouble.

 SolarCross wrote:
...I have entertained the idea of doing a "patch" for 7th edition which would aim to fix its balance issues and do up some datasheets for the newer releases. I do feel weirdly attached to that edition given I never really had a chance to play it. And as you say old editions are not in flux the way new editions are, and after years of field testing by the community the issues are sort of well known. Then again I am not sure I could justify spending the time doing that given monetising the labour would be iffy with GW jealously guarding their IP...

That's closer to a description of my homebrew rewrite (link in signature) than Mezmorki's.

As to 9th generally it's fine if you're a tournament player, or don't mind spam lists, or don't mind having to netlist to play even basic pick-up games, but I really dislike it due to the emphasis on tournament play and the masses of bloat GW constructed to make up for the fact that they pulled all the interesting gameplay out of the core rules.

A few of the other posts have mentioned Crusade; this is the 40k that I've been waiting for since 1989; it is the only way I play.

If you like the idea of starting with a small force of just a few units, and growing your army organically through game play, nothing else will come close to what Crusade has to offer.

If, on the other hand, you just want to build a 2k army and play, any of the older editions will probably do just as well, and some people who play this way do prefer older rule sets.

For Crusaders, 9th ed is a must. For others, it's a choice.

 SolarCross wrote:
I am getting back into 40k, so is 9th ed any good?

I first jumped in when 7th ed was current but didn't quite get to the point of actually gaming when 7th was upstaged by 8th. I was nonplussed about buying more books so I sort of lost interest a bit since. So now 9th has been out for a bit I am torn between trying to make some use of my old 7th ed books by playing some retro hammer or getting down with what is hip with the kids now, that being 9th.

Yes. It’s super fun. This forum is salty as feth, but yes, 9th is fun.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 SolarCross wrote:
...I have entertained the idea of doing a "patch" for 7th edition which would aim to fix its balance issues and do up some datasheets for the newer releases. I do feel weirdly attached to that edition given I never really had a chance to play it. And as you say old editions are not in flux the way new editions are, and after years of field testing by the community the issues are sort of well known. Then again I am not sure I could justify spending the time doing that given monetising the labour would be iffy with GW jealously guarding their IP...

That's closer to a description of my homebrew rewrite (link in signature) than Mezmorki's.

I'll take a look.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 SolarCross wrote:

As to 9th generally it's fine if you're a tournament player, or don't mind spam lists, or don't mind having to netlist to play even basic pick-up games, but I really dislike it due to the emphasis on tournament play and the masses of bloat GW constructed to make up for the fact that they pulled all the interesting gameplay out of the core rules.

I guess that is GW responding to the long running bellyaching from the community about "balance". A competitive game does want to be balanced, but the trick is that balance gets harder the more complex the game is. It becomes a combinatoric problem that is virtually insoluble. Only really simple and symmetrical games have a chance of being balanced. Games like chess, go or backgammon but even then after thousands of years of rigorous playtesting and statistical analysis it turns out white has a slight advantage over black in chess and black has a slight advantage over white in go... so..

In fairness to GW I don't think they really wanted to write balanced rules, they wanted a "fun" game based on drama and silliness rather than hard nosed gamey competition. 40k shouldn't even be properly considered a game at all given 28mm is just a stupidly huge scale for a wargame with tanks as game pieces. Really at 28mm scale 40k is more of a beauty pageant for hobby skills or some sort of LARP but with models. But the ThatGuys among us didn't understand that.

I don't really care about competitive playing. I play go, and that is a proper game for competitive gaming. I want to play 40k for the narrative, the goofying around and showing off my hobby skills.

I'm enjoying 9th edition.

If 10th is a major departure, I'd stick with 9th. I like the core format of the game... maybe some points tweaks here and there but that's true of every edition.

Its the best version of the game I've played... it's not a tactically deep game but it's a fun way to spend some time with friends.

If you're a necron it's better than 8e,

I like what they've changed and their apparent direction. Just hard to buy back in when such core updates have been shifted to the codex/campaign book releases.

Editions only having a three year life and we're burning at least one waiting out the plague is really holding me back on dropping the hundreds on paper it would take to get up and running.

What about Tau? Wait for a new codex?

 BertBert wrote:
What about Tau? Wait for a new codex?

Skip 9th. The way GW wrote the 9e missions Tau are nigh-unplayable and likely going to remain so unless GW changes so much about the new Codex they're unrecognizable, which is unlikely given their established pattern of barely touching statlines and trying to fix everything with stratagems.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SolarCross wrote:
...I don't really care about competitive playing. I play go, and that is a proper game for competitive gaming. I want to play 40k for the narrative, the goofying around and showing off my hobby skills.

Skip 9th and go to Oldhammer. There is no narrative (Space Marines with knives can and will kill a tank by stabbing it because the right people shouted at them), if you goof around you will get tabled in a turn (the lethality of the game makes "durability" more about avoiding LOS than anything else), the army rules are set up to make conversions pointless ("no option in the box? no rules!"), and the line of sight rules are set up to punish people who try ("My antenna can see the tip of your spear, I can shoot you!").

I'd say 8th felt good in the start, got kind of wonky later down the road.

I haven't even played 9th yet, my last game was back in February of this year around my birthday. Has been a sad year for this old vet. By the time I play again I'll feel like a noob, which is interesting as I haven't felt that way for a long time with warhammer.

It looks ok though ? I think some of the changes really kinda function oddly until more armies have their codex on hand which unless you are a marine ? Lord knows when that will be.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Skip 9th and go to Oldhammer. There is no narrative (Space Marines with knives can and will kill a tank by stabbing it because the right people shouted at them), if you goof around you will get tabled in a turn (the lethality of the game makes "durability" more about avoiding LOS than anything else), the army rules are set up to make conversions pointless ("no option in the box? no rules!"), and the line of sight rules are set up to punish people who try ("My antenna can see the tip of your spear, I can shoot you!").

That was one of the things that put me off about 8th was when I heard that options which did not have models got scrubbed. I really like conversions. Honestly that is a deal breaker.

I’ve just started Tau in 9th. Using the “Tau” Chapter Tactic (overwatch on 5’s) coupled with Fireblades giving an extra shot at close range... keeping units packed together to bump your overwatch is working pretty well for me. Take Darkstrider and you can fall back and shoot with Infantry. It’s more Firewarrior heavy than I might like, but it’s not unwinable. I’m finding 9th to be rewarding to the mid-range shooting that Tau do well.

Regarding conversions and the like... if you’re playing oldhammer, you’re playing with like minded individuals. It might be just as easy to request permission to use your converted models like “Legend” models, or as the closest rules-valid model instead.

Keep in mind, you don’t need to get on the treadmill. If you like the game at a given state you don’t have to keep buying new rules, etc. You can also perhaps find used copies on your local buy and sell.

Nothing wrong with Oldhammer. No given edition has ever been perfect, and you can build an excellent game with like minded people that are willing to work together to “fix” problems in older editions.

I personally enjoy 9th, and would suggest it as an excellent base game. I’d say it would be easier to tweak points and rules for 9th, to make an excellent game, than it would be to rework older editions.

 greatbigtree wrote:
...Regarding conversions and the like... if you’re playing oldhammer, you’re playing with like minded individuals. It might be just as easy to request permission to use your converted models like “Legend” models, or as the closest rules-valid model instead...

I find this is much easier, both in writing the rules and in convincing other people to let you use them, in a pre-stratagem environment where you can worry only about the performance of your unit rather than trying to figure out how the support stack of stratagems and auras works (particularly when you need to be able to read every book to figure out whether your stratagem interaction is going to be OP or pointless) and whether your homebrew rules will break them because of some interaction you'd never heard of.

Just a point but don't forget with Corona many people have not gamed or have not gamed as much. So there's a lot more armchair theory floating around about 9th edition than normal by this stage in a release. Heck GW was messed up and we lacked a single 9th edition codex for over a month after the core book landed.

I also enjoy 9th massively and it's the best edition so far, with 5th being a close second. And I must say I was really skeptical about 9th at first, but with quite a few games under my belt now, both in real and TTS, I don't want to play in any other way.

If you haven't played 40k before, there is no reason to start another edition than 9th - older editions have different aspects that people (rightfully) miss today, but you also can't deny that the quality of the ruleset itself, the balance between armies, the balance between units within an army and the support from GW was much, much worse in older editions.

No, 9th is not good. It's simply not as bad as 7th or 8th, which is a bar so low even the Mariana Trench would consider it overkill.

40k isn't a wargame anymore, it's a TCG, where the game is decided at the deckbuilding stage, except the price gouging is done by the company rather than the secondary market.

The sad part is GW actually did manage to make a good game, namely Apocalypse, but left it to wither and die because I guess the beancounters didn't like giving datasheets for free rather than making you spend £50 for a handful of datasheets ala suppliments.

Add to that the insane escalation of needless rules since 8th Indexhammer (seriously, Marines have like 37 different layers of rules and buffs you need to parse at any time), and GW's insistence on the paper codex release paradigm where one army will rule the roost for years while others are a total joke.

Indexhammer 8th had such potential. A logical streamlining of the rules, but the constant need to codex creep and the utterly idiotic introduction of Primaris Marines to make the IP Lawyers happy after the Dog and Pony show that was the Chapter House lawsuits has destroyed that potential.