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.

Tycho wrote:

If some only by a specific brand, that's... not relevant. They can do it if they want, but it doesn't change the category from 'brand' to 'hobby,' let alone the whole hobby.
Its like inviting someone to play some multiplayer Call of Duty when you actually mean Civilization. Or rather, inviting someone to 'play Activision.'

You're misunderstanding me to a pretty wide degree. Of course it's not literally the entire hobby, but functionally, in some locales, it is, quite literally, the only option if your vision of the hobby is, building, painting, AND PLAYING/having a community around you to enjoy the hobby with. In your analogy, it would be like saying "Do you want to play Civilazation instead of CoD today" and every person saying "no".

I'm not misunderstanding you at all. I get that people don't play everything, and many people say no to other games. That does not change a brand to the entire hobby. Its purely a matter of nomenclature.

If 40k is the only wargame you play, that still doesn't make 40k the only wargame or the entirety of the hobby. If people are refusing to play Civ to only play Call of Duty (brands), they aren't refusing all computer games (hobby).

For some, it's just not as simple as "go pick up another game".

I.. never claimed it was. That isn't even weird or unusual. But wargaming is still the hobby, and Warhammer is still a specific brand.

Audustum wrote:

Tycho wrote:

honestly , that is somewhat correct, however the streamlining did create an easier job for the designers.
the other problem is corporate seemingly insisting on cut content DLC and rules sources being written seemingly by singular people on their own without feedback or general knowledge what the other side is doing, cue IH supplement, cue DE DT shenanigans.

Agree with all of this, although the IH fiasco is a head scratcher and points to the disconnect on the designers part IMO. GW have publicly stated that the play testers flagged that book. GW released it anyway. This is likely due to a move by corporate sales rather than the design staff (who were left in an awkward spot), but at the same time, how did they not see how bad that book was before it even got to the testers?

In true GW fashion, it's fully possible the book was already being printed while being playtested.

Or, like they did with Dark Eldar, changed after playtesting and then printed without playtesting the changes. Apparently Dark Lances got changed after playtesting and weren't re-tested after being changed.

In true GW fashion, it's fully possible the book was already being printed while being playtested.

Also possible!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I'm not misunderstanding you at all. I get that people don't play everything, and many people say no to other games. That does not change a brand to the entire hobby. Its purely a matter of nomenclature.

You understand completely. You're just splitting hairs.

The thread is asking why people seem to stay if they don't like GW. I gave an answer. I'm willing to bet that's probably the most common answer too. For a large portion of gamers there's no other option. So for them, unfortunately, it effectively is the hobby. Saying "But no it's not because Coke doesn't represent all soda" is being pedantic for pedantry's sake and doesn't change the reality of how hard it is (nigh impossible in many places) to play something other than 40k or AoS.

I even said previously that it's not literally the whole hobby. I'm just explaining a situation many are in.

True. Where I live the options are historicals, w40k, AoS or 9th age and infinity. Warmachine was once huge, from what I have been told, but sometime in the past the company just decided to stop selling models to stores and the game died out.

It is hard to start a game, which maybe is ideal for you, when the store doesn't support it, because they prioritise table tame for ccg and table tops they sell.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Or, like they did with Dark Eldar, changed after playtesting and then printed without playtesting the changes. Apparently Dark Lances got changed after playtesting and weren't re-tested after being changed.

The double funny from this is that the playtesters were leaking that DE are going to be very powerful as far as last year. And if they thought DE were powerful with the old rules, this means that the up comming books that are suppose to reign them it could be changed too. We could have 2.0 levels or castelan era of fun, in the middle of an edition.

It is hard to start a game, which maybe is ideal for you, when the store doesn't support it, because they prioritise table tame for ccg and table tops they sell.

Yeah, no one really plays CCGs where I am anymore, but they were almost 100% responsible for the downfall of SST and one of the last editions of Warzone. Both of which came out at a time when my local community wasn't playing much GW at all and were shifting laregly to card games. Now all of those games are non-existent. GW or paint in your basement alone. Or both

For a large portion of gamers there's no other option. So for them, unfortunately, it effectively is the hobby. Saying "But no it's not because Coke doesn't represent all soda" is being pedantic for pedantry's sake and doesn't change the reality of how hard it is (nigh impossible in many places) to play something other than 40k or AoS.

Point here-

We have a guy who after several years is FINALLY branching out trimming down his 40K army collections and buying minis for the other game systems he always said he wanted to play. currently he is building up his legion of everblight for our fun warmahordes group.



We play loads of different games at our FLGS and i personally bring multiple armies for other players to use to introduce them to new games or just flat out give them something else to play without obligation to build an army from another system. I have gotten positive results with many people jumping into these other games once they realize how good(and cheap) they are compared to GW games. including people who do not normally play miniature games-one of our MTG players now has a huge DUST SSU army and an epic thousand sons chaos army

You will never break people out of the GW cycle unless you take the incentive to promote it yourself.

I know in Karol's case he does not have the money to do what i do, as i have been at this hobby collecting for over 20 years and have a good paying job to support it

Just in my normal "toolbox" i bring with me to the store every saturday-

.2 infinity armies
.a couple classic battletech lances (or if we plan it ahead i have entire case of minis for dozens of armies i can bring in)
.3 DUST 1947 armies at 150 points
.2 warmachine armies at 50 points
.5 epic 40K armies
.2 fleets for a B5 wars conversion battle game (currently star wars armada scale)
.2 fleets for victory at sea
.2 monpoc factions (by request only due to space constraints)

And that is not counting my own chaos fleet for BFG and my admech army for regular 5th ed 40K .

I used to be able to bring all of it but now that i can no longer store my terrain collection at the store i have to bring that as well so it cuts down on transport space.....needless to say my little scion is packed full on game day (i bring a cooler with food and drink as well, since i am there for 12+ hours)

Audustum wrote:

Tycho wrote:

honestly , that is somewhat correct, however the streamlining did create an easier job for the designers.
the other problem is corporate seemingly insisting on cut content DLC and rules sources being written seemingly by singular people on their own without feedback or general knowledge what the other side is doing, cue IH supplement, cue DE DT shenanigans.

Agree with all of this, although the IH fiasco is a head scratcher and points to the disconnect on the designers part IMO. GW have publicly stated that the play testers flagged that book. GW released it anyway. This is likely due to a move by corporate sales rather than the design staff (who were left in an awkward spot), but at the same time, how did they not see how bad that book was before it even got to the testers?

In true GW fashion, it's fully possible the book was already being printed while being playtested.

you know, i have an inkling that this is happening the whole time, but the concern of failure has worn off so the rules designer are less concerned unlike when 8th launched initially and got improved, until Sm2.0.. Basically 7th was too close initially so they actually attempted to work competently and now that they are again having highwater (and a medicore PR department that deletes negative comments cue basically 0 contents remaining in regards to elysian and R&H on their FB site f.e.) they feel overconfident again.

You will never break people out of the GW cycle unless you take the incentive to promote it yourself.

Yes, I have made several references to doing exactly that in this thread. There have been times where it worked for maybe 6 months to a year, but those days are long past. Our town is done to a GW store and an LGS. The LGS no longer even carries much else besides GW and boardgames due to anything else being a drag on the inventory budget.

When SST came out, I actually bought 4 starters from an LGS and GAVE THEM AWAY to get interest started. It worked for a time, but so many companies have come and gone, and the hobby is just expensive enough that at least in my area, it's not really feasible anymore. When 40k started flagging in 7th, people didn't even switch games. They just stopped playing. No one here wants to take that risk anymore (which I understand). Some areas you will have success promoting other systems. Some you won't. I'm fine w/it as my local GW scene is generally pretty chill. I just know there are players who are stuck in a similar spot, but with TERRIBLE communities.

you know, i have an inkling that this is happening the whole time, but the concern of failure has worn off so the rules designer are less concerned unlike when 8th launched initially and got improved, until Sm2.0.. Basically 7th was too close initially so they actually attempted to work competently and now that they are again having highwater (and a medicore PR department that deletes negative comments cue basically 0 contents remaining in regards to elysian and R&H on their FB site f.e.) they feel overconfident again.

Probably an accurate assessment. Could also see a situation in which sales is still meddling a bit too much in the design space (like when they pretty ran much ran roughshod in the Kirby/7th ed era) and the designers have just said "Stuff it. We're just going to design however we design because there's no way for us to put a proper process in place anyway." In which case I feel for them. As a Creative Director I've seen creative teams stuck in that spot more times than I care to remember.

Someone else hinted at this earlier, but one of the problems we run into is that the product doesn't have to be GOOD. It just needs to be "good enough" to meet their numbers. Which is why some of these things happen (and that's not a dig at GW - it's the same everywhere)...

I know in Karol's case he does not have the money to do what i do, as i have been at this hobby collecting for over 20 years and have a good paying job to support it

In general, I think that aside for a few outliers, when you are 13-16 you play very different games then people in their late 20s, mid 30s. And it more or less shows its impact in every aspect of the hobby. Telling a 35y old that he hast to spend 100-150$ on anything, is drasticaly different to telling the same to someone half the age or less. The questions don't make sense, the anwsers don't make sense. When a 30+ year old hears that that painting an army costs too much, he thinks that it is stupid. But he doesn't have to leave on a 30$ hobby budget per month. At the same time stuff like playing at home i WAY different, when you are a bachelor living in your own flat and when you are 15 and trying to explain to you mother why a dude who is her age is going to come in a few hours to play toy soliders then you.

Just in my normal "toolbox" i bring with me to the store every saturday-

Let me guess, I don't suppose you use a bus or train or a bike to transport those tool boxs?

Karol wrote:
At the same time stuff like playing at home i WAY different, when you are a bachelor living in your own flat and when you are 15 and trying to explain to you mother why a dude who is her age is going to come in a few hours to play toy soliders then you.

This is funny to me because we had a guy who was 18 join the group for a period and he just WOULD NOT travel to our regular playing house to play (he did have a car) and would insist that we come round to his parents house and play in his sisters room (who was at college so its okay). We kept trying to get it through to him that a bunch of men his parents age hanging around his sisters room is a bit awkward for everyone but he just wouldn't listen.

Well with 6+ bilion people many things are possible. Plus I imagine, that if I had scooter or motor bike, and had to pay for the gas at 18. I would rather play at my home too. Assuming of course my step dad saying it is okey, which it wouldn't be, but I am just assuming.

I've done it.

I'm personally responsible for getting the LOTR and 30k communities started (yes those are both GW games, but LOTR especially is different enough as to be another game entirely).

I'm a founding member of the Chain of Command community, which is growing (mostly outside the club, but growing nonetheless).

That said, let me count the number of games I have tried (or participated in trying to start) and failed at:
1) Flames of War (I can't get it off the ground since the latest edition came out, though I didn't try right when the edition dropped and possibly too long).
2) Bolt Action (a "worse" CoC)
3) A variety of ancients games (Field of Glory was the main one I pushed because I love that game)
4) Elder Scrolls Miniatures Game
5) Fallout Minis
6) SAGA (both historical and Age of Magic)


Looking at all those games and at the money spent on them makes me physically cringe that I can't play them anymore. At least the Bolt Action minis can be used for Chain of Command. The rest languish unused, and while cheaper than 40k/AOS, were not cheap. Plus, the emotional effort of getting involved - getting invested in your minis and their paintjobs (rip Elder Scrolls minis, I love you guys), doing solo and duo demo games while other people are having fun playing 40k in the same room....

starting up a new game community from literally scratch is not a trivial process, at least for me, and has significant costs.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Audustum wrote:

Tycho wrote:

honestly , that is somewhat correct, however the streamlining did create an easier job for the designers.
the other problem is corporate seemingly insisting on cut content DLC and rules sources being written seemingly by singular people on their own without feedback or general knowledge what the other side is doing, cue IH supplement, cue DE DT shenanigans.

Agree with all of this, although the IH fiasco is a head scratcher and points to the disconnect on the designers part IMO. GW have publicly stated that the play testers flagged that book. GW released it anyway. This is likely due to a move by corporate sales rather than the design staff (who were left in an awkward spot), but at the same time, how did they not see how bad that book was before it even got to the testers?

In true GW fashion, it's fully possible the book was already being printed while being playtested.

you know, i have an inkling that this is happening the whole time, but the concern of failure has worn off so the rules designer are less concerned unlike when 8th launched initially and got improved, until Sm2.0.. Basically 7th was too close initially so they actually attempted to work competently and now that they are again having highwater (and a medicore PR department that deletes negative comments cue basically 0 contents remaining in regards to elysian and R&H on their FB site f.e.) they feel overconfident again.

They also probably think that if something is broken they can just "fix it later in a FAQ". Which is a prevailing problem with companies these days: "Video game doesn't work right? Fix it later with a patch", "Broken rules in a codex? Fix it later with a FAQ", "Car randomly bursts into flames when you put it in reverse? Fix it later with a recall". Few companies seem to want to go to the effort to make sure things work right on Day 1.

The accelerated release schedule basically forces the issues be FAQed as well. It's removed the polish we expect from the studio.

They need to go back to a 4-5 year release cycle.

Or they need to hire more people to get the same man hours out of 3 years as you would in 4-5

I think people are quitting GW when they are unhappy, but you have to look at GW as a collection of games/products rather than as a single entity.

Some players boycott/quit their accessories, some their paints and some their rule books.

Then, look at the games. My experience at the FLGS I went to weekly was:

Aeronautica/Titanicus/Kill Team/Necromunda/Warcry/Blood Bowl - Some purchases, zero games after the first month. Occasionally a new product results in a one week return. These games were increasingly becoming DOA as people got used to the GW model. So there was a lot of interest in Necromunda initially but after everyone saw the book shovelling model I think they avoided the later games like Aeronautica/Warcry.

AoS/Underworlds/Middle Earth - More purchases and you can expect to see someone playing it once a month. Most of the AoS armies are older armies with the occasional completely new AoS force showing up.

40k - See multiple people buying something each week, see multiple games every week.

You also have to look closely at the 40k players and their buying habits as they aren't all the same. I've already mentioned some don't use the GW paints, accessories, books. But, then some also only buy second hand off ebay, others convert, a small number use third party bits, a few have a "russian/chinese friend" and a lot of resin models. Some just have a large but old collection and rarely purchase anything new.

I've also noticed the few "whale" 40k players in our group stopped buying collectors editions in 9th edition after being disappointed with them in 8th. Another expressed dissapointment with the Psychic Awakening books, he hasn't mentioned getting any of the warzone books yet.

So when someone talks about hating GW, they could be hating on the 90% of the products they don't buy anymore.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
The accelerated release schedule basically forces the issues be FAQed as well. It's removed the polish we expect from the studio.

They need to go back to a 4-5 year release cycle.

No that is not the way , especially not considering inequality whenever a Edition drops and for certain worse in regards for those at the end of a cycle.
In an optimal world all factions would get their fully tested dex at the Same time. However since gw is a shareholder coperation that is wishfull thinking unless they have something to Make up to the consumer aka 8th, since they want to equalise them.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
The accelerated release schedule basically forces the issues be FAQed as well. It's removed the polish we expect from the studio.

They need to go back to a 4-5 year release cycle.

That would just leave more factions waiting even longer for sorely needed updates. They just need to hire more rules writers, and someone to coordinate all of the various teams. It wouldn't hurt if they didn't drag their feet so much on getting the FAQs out either. I can understand if it's something that requires a major rework, but obviously broken interactions, like the 32 attack Succubus or the unkillable IH Leviathans, should be handled quickly. It's pretty obvious stuff like that aren't what the designers intended, so they should know it needs fixing without months of data collection.

Not Online!!! wrote:


If you really want to go that line down, i am sorry but no neither stratagems nor warlord traits nor subfactions increased customizability.

I understand how you can make this point- it has to do with how you define customizability. A load out, or an always on ability feels more like customization than a strat does because it stays with the unit forever. With strats, however, each unit has access to a list of abilities that they can choose to use or not use; some will be granted on the basis of unit type, some on the basis of legion affiliation etc. Most units are going to have an option to access five or more different strats. Because these stack with WL traits, chapter tactics and relic effects, they act as a multiplier. Load out options, conversely, are set at list building so once the first turn begins, you lose access to all the ones you didn't pick; the build your own abilities that you could take are multipliers for the loadout options you do select, but that's your only multiplier.

Not Online!!! wrote:


Simply put: F.e. the CSM dex, is absolute horsegak in that regard.

If you check the edition number on your chaos dex, I'm pretty sure it doesn't say 9th. Now I realize that GW should have made some FAQ adjustments to the Chaos dex to bring it more in line with the rest of 9th; why they didn't boost wound counts is beyond me. But it sounds like you're doing a lot of judging of 9th based on a faction which we don't actually know how well it will or will not perform in 9th.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Or they need to hire more people to get the same man hours out of 3 years as you would in 4-5

Nah, I'd rather they slow the release cycle down AND hire more people so we can increase the amount of polish on every book.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
The accelerated release schedule basically forces the issues be FAQed as well. It's removed the polish we expect from the studio.

They need to go back to a 4-5 year release cycle.

No that is not the way , especially not considering inequality whenever a Edition drops and for certain worse in regards for those at the end of a cycle.
In an optimal world all factions would get their fully tested dex at the Same time. However since gw is a shareholder coperation that is wishfull thinking unless they have something to Make up to the consumer aka 8th, since they want to equalise them.

Meh, I'd rather we see beta rules or something at the start of the edition to give a boost to the books that won't release right away than keep a cycle that pushes to cram the entire game into a 3 year cycle and still misses updating armies.

Paying "Enhanced" points for something that won't be relevant until 2 years later is gak and needs to be changed.

ClockworkZion wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
The accelerated release schedule basically forces the issues be FAQed as well. It's removed the polish we expect from the studio.

They need to go back to a 4-5 year release cycle.

No that is not the way , especially not considering inequality whenever a Edition drops and for certain worse in regards for those at the end of a cycle.
In an optimal world all factions would get their fully tested dex at the Same time. However since gw is a shareholder coperation that is wishfull thinking unless they have something to Make up to the consumer aka 8th, since they want to equalise them.

Meh, I'd rather we see beta rules or something at the start of the edition to give a boost to the books that won't release right away than keep a cycle that pushes to cram the entire game into a 3 year cycle and still misses updating armies.

That is a good idea, and I'd welcome an edition that lasted longer than 3 years. But the key thing is that they don't charge for those beta rules, otherwise you're just giving them another chance to double dip players for rules.

PenitentJake wrote:

Spoiler:

Not Online!!! wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:

 aphyon wrote:

Some factions had hard restrictions to make them unique stand alone armies-deathwing/ravenwing, saim hann eldar, farsight enclave tau etc..

You can still do all of these things and better in 9th; you can also do this with Every. Single. Subfaction. In. The. Game. Not just the lucky ones or the poster boys.

No i can't. Because my faction literally doesn't exist anymore, respectively what exists is legends and not working as the faction is and was supposed to without even the same access to units. And my other faction has subfactions that are basically not workable with.

Now that I know that you're an R&H player, that goes a ways toward explaining your dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs. I do feel for you; you genuinely have more reason than most to dislike 8th/9th. I do empathize with you; in your shoes I'd be disillusioned too- after all, the exclusion of my preferred factions from 5th- 8th was a cause for my disillusionment too.

My empathy for your justifiable disillusionment makes it hard to say this next part without sounding like a jerk, but I feel like it should be pretty self evident to anyone whose army relies on Forgeworld to be functional that they are taking a risk by continuing to play that army. I like many of the models Forgeworld makes, but I HATE the fact that they aren't all just GW kits available through the same channels as GW products. I don't know if R&H had an actual GW dex in 6th or 7th, but if not, THAT is when your armies died, not 8th/ 9th. You may have been able to continue to play them with FW rules, just like the Tim Huckleberry/ Citadel Journal dex allowed me to keep playing GSC in 3rd ed- but I was well aware that without actual, official GW rules, the army was dead, and I'm surprised you didn't feel that way sooner than 8th about R&H.

Forge World is "actual, official, gw rules". Forge World is a gw subsidiary, all of the money goes to exactly the same place, and there are links to fw on the gw website. All of the 9th edition rules for fw units are in the Imperial Armour Compendium, which was written by the same people as all 9th edition codexes and the BRB. R&H was supported by both the rules in IA13 and models in 6th/7th. There was no reason for anyone playing the army at that time to expect them to become completely unsupported in the next edition. People who play fw armies or units should have no reason to think that they are "taking a risk", because our money is going to the exact same company as anyone buying what you consider "actual, official, gw rules".

FW no longer writes rules for 40k, all of the FW rules we currently have, to include legends stuff, were written by the GW rules team.

And yes, FREE beta rules via FAQ would be the best kick off for a new edition.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Spoiler:

ClockworkZion wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
The accelerated release schedule basically forces the issues be FAQed as well. It's removed the polish we expect from the studio.

They need to go back to a 4-5 year release cycle.

No that is not the way , especially not considering inequality whenever a Edition drops and for certain worse in regards for those at the end of a cycle.
In an optimal world all factions would get their fully tested dex at the Same time. However since gw is a shareholder coperation that is wishfull thinking unless they have something to Make up to the consumer aka 8th, since they want to equalise them.

Meh, I'd rather we see beta rules or something at the start of the edition to give a boost to the books that won't release right away than keep a cycle that pushes to cram the entire game into a 3 year cycle and still misses updating armies.

That is a good idea, and I'd welcome an edition that lasted longer than 3 years. But the key thing is that they don't charge for those beta rules, otherwise you're just giving them another chance to double dip players for rules.

PenitentJake wrote:[spoiler]

Not Online!!! wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:

 aphyon wrote:

Some factions had hard restrictions to make them unique stand alone armies-deathwing/ravenwing, saim hann eldar, farsight enclave tau etc..

You can still do all of these things and better in 9th; you can also do this with Every. Single. Subfaction. In. The. Game. Not just the lucky ones or the poster boys.

No i can't. Because my faction literally doesn't exist anymore, respectively what exists is legends and not working as the faction is and was supposed to without even the same access to units. And my other faction has subfactions that are basically not workable with.

Now that I know that you're an R&H player, that goes a ways toward explaining your dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs. I do feel for you; you genuinely have more reason than most to dislike 8th/9th. I do empathize with you; in your shoes I'd be disillusioned too- after all, the exclusion of my preferred factions from 5th- 8th was a cause for my disillusionment too.

My empathy for your justifiable disillusionment makes it hard to say this next part without sounding like a jerk, but I feel like it should be pretty self evident to anyone whose army relies on Forgeworld to be functional that they are taking a risk by continuing to play that army. I like many of the models Forgeworld makes, but I HATE the fact that they aren't all just GW kits available through the same channels as GW products. I don't know if R&H had an actual GW dex in 6th or 7th, but if not, THAT is when your armies died, not 8th/ 9th. You may have been able to continue to play them with FW rules, just like the Tim Huckleberry/ Citadel Journal dex allowed me to keep playing GSC in 3rd ed- but I was well aware that without actual, official GW rules, the army was dead, and I'm surprised you didn't feel that way sooner than 8th about R&H.

[/spoiler]

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Forge World is "actual, official, gw rules". Forge World is a gw subsidiary, all of the money goes to exactly the same place, and there are links to fw on the gw website. All of the 9th edition rules for fw units are in the Imperial Armour Compendium, which was written by the same people as all 9th edition codexes and the BRB. R&H was supported by both the rules in IA13 and models in 6th/7th. There was no reason for anyone playing the army at that time to expect them to become completely unsupported in the next edition. People who play fw armies or units should have no reason to think that they are "taking a risk", because our money is going to the exact same company as anyone buying what you consider "actual, official, gw rules".

On that last bit you are incorrect. You are buying GW product &, although you weren't aware of it, they are not adverse to dropping product lines. Never have been. R&H is not the 1st faction/models GW has ever dropped. For example;
*Squats. My Space Dwarves last had Index style rules at the dawn of 2e & then the models were phased out. 3e - present = :( Where do you think the term "Squatting" comes from in relation to GW?
*Bretonians & Tomb Kings for AoS.
*There's plenty more examples.

Honestly it'd be unreasonable to assume GW will support every product ever created forever. Stuff eventually has to go at some point. I know I've annoyed people by pointing out that the Space Marine codex is way to overbloated and it's time to just pull the bandage off and start culling first born (I'm NOT saying all of them at once, but they could start with the old bikes and anything still in Finecast). That book has over a hundred datasheets and is in some desperate need of pruning.

ccs wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Spoiler:

ClockworkZion wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
The accelerated release schedule basically forces the issues be FAQed as well. It's removed the polish we expect from the studio.

They need to go back to a 4-5 year release cycle.

No that is not the way , especially not considering inequality whenever a Edition drops and for certain worse in regards for those at the end of a cycle.
In an optimal world all factions would get their fully tested dex at the Same time. However since gw is a shareholder coperation that is wishfull thinking unless they have something to Make up to the consumer aka 8th, since they want to equalise them.

Meh, I'd rather we see beta rules or something at the start of the edition to give a boost to the books that won't release right away than keep a cycle that pushes to cram the entire game into a 3 year cycle and still misses updating armies.

That is a good idea, and I'd welcome an edition that lasted longer than 3 years. But the key thing is that they don't charge for those beta rules, otherwise you're just giving them another chance to double dip players for rules.

PenitentJake wrote:[spoiler]

Not Online!!! wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:

 aphyon wrote:

Some factions had hard restrictions to make them unique stand alone armies-deathwing/ravenwing, saim hann eldar, farsight enclave tau etc..

You can still do all of these things and better in 9th; you can also do this with Every. Single. Subfaction. In. The. Game. Not just the lucky ones or the poster boys.

No i can't. Because my faction literally doesn't exist anymore, respectively what exists is legends and not working as the faction is and was supposed to without even the same access to units. And my other faction has subfactions that are basically not workable with.

Now that I know that you're an R&H player, that goes a ways toward explaining your dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs. I do feel for you; you genuinely have more reason than most to dislike 8th/9th. I do empathize with you; in your shoes I'd be disillusioned too- after all, the exclusion of my preferred factions from 5th- 8th was a cause for my disillusionment too.

My empathy for your justifiable disillusionment makes it hard to say this next part without sounding like a jerk, but I feel like it should be pretty self evident to anyone whose army relies on Forgeworld to be functional that they are taking a risk by continuing to play that army. I like many of the models Forgeworld makes, but I HATE the fact that they aren't all just GW kits available through the same channels as GW products. I don't know if R&H had an actual GW dex in 6th or 7th, but if not, THAT is when your armies died, not 8th/ 9th. You may have been able to continue to play them with FW rules, just like the Tim Huckleberry/ Citadel Journal dex allowed me to keep playing GSC in 3rd ed- but I was well aware that without actual, official GW rules, the army was dead, and I'm surprised you didn't feel that way sooner than 8th about R&H.

[/spoiler]

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Forge World is "actual, official, gw rules". Forge World is a gw subsidiary, all of the money goes to exactly the same place, and there are links to fw on the gw website. All of the 9th edition rules for fw units are in the Imperial Armour Compendium, which was written by the same people as all 9th edition codexes and the BRB. R&H was supported by both the rules in IA13 and models in 6th/7th. There was no reason for anyone playing the army at that time to expect them to become completely unsupported in the next edition. People who play fw armies or units should have no reason to think that they are "taking a risk", because our money is going to the exact same company as anyone buying what you consider "actual, official, gw rules".

On that last bit you are incorrect. You are buying GW product &, although you weren't aware of it, they are not adverse to dropping product lines. Never have been. R&H is not the 1st faction/models GW has ever dropped. For example;
*Squats. My Space Dwarves last had Index style rules at the dawn of 2e & then the models were phased out. 3e - present = :( Where do you think the term "Squatting" comes from in relation to GW?
*Bretonians & Tomb Kings for AoS.
*There's plenty more examples.

I'm well aware of that. Perhaps I should have said "People who play fw armies or units should have no more reason to think that they are "taking a risk" than players of "actual, official, gw armies and units". Yes, gw can drop any army at any time, but being from fw doesn't have anything to do with it, as your own examples show.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Honestly it'd be unreasonable to assume GW will support every product ever created forever. Stuff eventually has to go at some point. I know I've annoyed people by pointing out that the Space Marine codex is way to overbloated and it's time to just pull the bandage off and start culling first born (I'm NOT saying all of them at once, but they could start with the old bikes and anything still in Finecast). That book has over a hundred datasheets and is in some desperate need of pruning.

Well it would be nice then, if they said this somewhere. Like something in the line, guys this product line exists only, because we did it in the past and there are people with the models already, but we don't really plan to update it or fix it, buy something else, unless you don't really care what your money is being spent on. You know the way supplements or shots go, when your MD and trainer tell you that you can go on this and it works, but it is finite , because companies stoped producing it or you can get the new stuff, which generaly is more expensive, but at least you know you could be using it for the next 2 years. At least on the local level.

Heres the rub, people can have actual, real complaints and voice them. Believe it or not life isn't love it or leave it, if something is wrong we should speak out about it.

Now this is just a hobby, but it doesn't mean GW doesn't really screw thing sup. ( Hey there 6th into 7th ). Echo chambers do nothing for the good of the game or society at large and believe it or not a vocal group wanting positive change is good for the game.

Whats not good is if everyone quietly quits and all anyone says is positive stuff while the game dies off. So I'd be worried more if I didn't hear heated discussions over the game.

In the end even the people who get most worked up, most of them, want positive change. It doesn't really feel like GW does that, they just keep doing swings and roundabouts to keep the game in never really balanced flux until they bloat it out and kill it and it needs a reset. At a certain point it just gets old. That would rightly annoy anyone.

PenitentJake wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:


If you really want to go that line down, i am sorry but no neither stratagems nor warlord traits nor subfactions increased customizability.

I understand how you can make this point- it has to do with how you define customizability. A load out, or an always on ability feels more like customization than a strat does because it stays with the unit forever. With strats, however, each unit has access to a list of abilities that they can choose to use or not use; some will be granted on the basis of unit type, some on the basis of legion affiliation etc. Most units are going to have an option to access five or more different strats. Because these stack with WL traits, chapter tactics and relic effects, they act as a multiplier. Load out options, conversely, are set at list building so once the first turn begins, you lose access to all the ones you didn't pick; the build your own abilities that you could take are multipliers for the loadout options you do select, but that's your only multiplier.

Which would be fine and dandy, if they were better balanced and not outright loopsided. And in regards to access to strats, IF all i do is summarised in the playstyle of buffstacking, which is in essence what CSM did and what many other dexes STILL do then you can't tell me that it is narrative that got increased, when the lists look like cookie cutter buildblocks which you can preciscly point to the role of a unit within and which stratagems it's going to use for those "cinematic" moments.

Not Online!!! wrote:


Simply put: F.e. the CSM dex, is absolute horsegak in that regard.

If you check the edition number on your chaos dex, I'm pretty sure it doesn't say 9th. Now I realize that GW should have made some FAQ adjustments to the Chaos dex to bring it more in line with the rest of 9th; why they didn't boost wound counts is beyond me. But it sounds like you're doing a lot of judging of 9th based on a faction which we don't actually know how well it will or will not perform in 9th.

Irrelevant, the system has crippled CSM all through 8th edition.It has done the same to GSC. The edition change has highlighted that issue, due to a lack of cp for these factions specifically. And i do a lot of judging on the system and how it impacts the factions, and stratagems still play a too big role ontop of often being lacklusterly designed.
As an aside, the last good narrative thematic CSM list was the 3.5 chaos dex, and that one was also broken as gak. After that you were not able to field a narrative functioning csm army anymore until 7th legion supplement and still had constantly broken stuff in there. It's streamlining and GW doesn't do it good. So yes i have 0 expectations that the CSM dex will be any good in that regard narratively.

Not Online!!! wrote:

The stratagems singlehandedly destroyed internal balance to the point where subfactions that can't have access to slaanesh will never pick certain units like havocs and obliterators f.e. The warlord traits are for the most part severly limited, unless you play BL, or AL, of which the later is still more limmited then the Posterboys of chaos.

Some traits are better than others, that's true. It's also true that some traits could have been replaced with other traits which more accurately reflected a given legion. All of them will be reviewed and updated when the 9th dex drops, and based on what I've seen of 9th so far, I think some of the particularly weak ones will get better. As I said, I haven't played out of the 8th dex yet- I've used it to theory-craft a hypothetical Slaanesh army, but that's about it, and I also don't have an accessible copy of the PA that dealt with CSM, so I yield to your superior knowledge specifically of CSM. There may be some units and combinations that are really, really good and others that are really really bad, but generally when I see these comments about dexes with which I am more familiar, the differences between what is spoken of as auto take and what is spoken of as trash are not as pronounced for non-tournament play. People whose favourite legion has a weak trait may be able to take other units to boost and buff- and they may whine about it because they don't feel they should have to, or maybe they don't particularly like the unit they can take to provide the buff, but that doesn't mean they don't have the option.

The problem is even IF PA helps / or a dex update, the access to warlord traits is severly limited and so far tied to a ressource CSM don't have readily access, unless of course you play RC, but then you forfeit access to the other stratagem making your units work... because VotLW is that warping an stratagem.
I won't even go torwards the whining part, it's simply put a sad fact that WB beyond Possessed suck and right now, that's not the insane Dark paladin mirror they should be with a foci on summoning and possessed of which only 1 thing "works".

Not Online!!! wrote:


Most of the warlord traits are also outright aurahammer rubish which don't let me represent how an unit actually fights if it is 6.1 " away from my chaos lord or whatever i have as a warlord.

And this is where your credibility starts to tank. There are 13 WL traits in the dex. Two are aura abilities. TWO. There is a third that extends the range of aura abilities- so we'll count that as an aura ability too. This is not "Most" of a pool of 13. I equate this level of misinformation with the previous post I responded to where someone implied that if you did enough research in the Witch Hunter dex, you could make an Order play differently than another when there were absolutely no rule differences between orders in the book at all.

I'm pretty careful about disclaiming I'm not an expert on chaos. I try not to make over the top assertions; even though you made this obvious and objectively visible error, I still concede that your knowledge of how chaos played in 8th and previous editions is likely greater than mine.

The problem is that the WL traits specifically get often chosen for either purely killing power, or auras / aura increases they provide. PA has a good exemple for IW etc. The other traits often don't even matter in the broad context of the faction at hand. Take PA WE, You even have some decen WL traits, except, you only get 1 singular. Now you also play WE, so you want to get into melee. There's excactly ONE trait that facilitates that, violent urgency. By the very nature of most WE lists you can't skip it. And if you intend to run a WE list you are already gunning for a narrative aligned experience. Sure you can argue that "just skip it", but WE doesn't forgive that and will by consequence start to work even less on the field like they should.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Nvm that for some factions the traits are basically a given and turn themselves from a narrative nice to have ability to a solved puzzle.

Again, more true when your primary concern is winning than when it's the story- but I will concede the possibility that some units may genuinely be liability and others might be lynchpins; in the armies that I play extensively enough to comment upon (Sisters and GSC) I don't find this to be a problem for me.

GSC? GSC revolved extensivly arround a trait if i am not mistaken during 8th and specific stratagems.
And the primary concern winning, no, however winning is par for the point of a wargame, so i think even if you intend to go as casual or narrative as possible you still would want an army list that atleast can work somewhat. And that is the core problem.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Unit loadout customizability being gone is just the next step of the simplification route and stratagems like AA missiles really just highlight the problem with the stratagem system itself.

I don't entirely disagree here- as I've said before, I'm not necessarily a fan of equipment becoming a strat... However, consider that a unit that actually pays for AA missiles has wasted it's points against any army that doesn't include aircraft, whereas the army that has access to AA strat looses NOTHING against that ground army. And again, when the unit that pays for AA missiles takes out an aircraft,,, that's just a unit doing its job. But when a unit that can't otherwise fire AA weapons decides to burn a strat to make it happen, it becomes a story. "While the squad would normally not be able to hit that dreaded Hemlock Wraithfighter, she who thirsts has granted her champion some fraction of her sight, that she may see the soul for which she hungers. This gift allows the unit to fire." vs "Yep, that's a flakk gun, so it does its job and shoots."

Nr: 1 maybe i am old school but i don't think 4 havocs with lascannons should be able to take a dedicated fighter or bomber out of the air. Period or at least should get really lucky. At the end of the day i am playing a wargame. The stratagems don't facilitate that.
Nr: 2 Fine and dandy in regards to the gift, only shame when you have no CP , does your aeon old champion just plain out not have the favour anymore?
Nr: 3. Considering that GW has refused to pad strategic baseline shortcomings of many factions via refusal to implement proper AA f.e. It’s entirely the wrong way to go and pad capabilities of factions via limited one time / turn use of a resource. FWIW the missile launcher should’ve come baseline with an AA missile but then again GW’s not interested in solving issues of their own creation.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Stuff like Red Butchers being an stratagem increases the lack of customizability via simply existing as a one off, and further cripple balance, just like cacophony does the same to shooting units in an extreme.

I think what you're getting at here is that the power level of some strats has an impact on GW's ability to effectively assign points to load-out options, since the point cost has to account for the possibility of the strat being used with that option. My difficulty is that you seem to disparage the limits to usage of the strat, implying that somehow, we'd be better off if this supposedly OP could instead be used by multiple units every turn. I mean, yeah... it would be easier to assign a high point value to that ability if it was "always on" and sure, it would be easier point a non affected version of the weapon low... But if it's as OP auto-take as you seem to imply it is, would multiple units being able to use it every turn really make it less OP and Auto-take at any cost?

Concede that I may have misunderstood the point you're trying to make here.

Partially, See Cacophony made obliterators and terminators overpriced for any non Slaanesh variant. Yet the non slaanesh variants make it so that the stratagem still is used on “underpriced” baseline model stats. That’s the balance side of the problem, even worse in regards to VotLW, since gw also has right now one of the worst iterations of a wounding chart… but .. sideshow.
The issue with the red butchers stratagem goes into that since it grants double fighting at no cost unlike khorneberzerkers which pay for it, but also is narratively just asinine because you can use it 1, ONCE, per game on a <terminator> modell type unit. Aka either your lord is a Red butcher, or one squad of terminators is your red butcher. If it were an actual upgrade then the balance aspect would fall to the side and WE players might actually could field a terminator spearhead of their “special” type of terminator.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Subfaction traits are a other exemple, there's no timeline in which a free general upgrade for being a specific colour will be balanced. There's clear objectively better options in most dexes, leading to those players that are narratively minded with bad traits or disfunctional traits or just simply not even fitting traits to basically be sabotaged.

That's because "Balance" isn't a matter of this Order Trait vs. that Order Trait. It is the whole suite of faction linked abilities vs the whole suite of faction based abilities that determines balance. So if one faction trait is clearly better than another, maybe the better of those two orders has a worse Relic, which balances out the superiority of it's Trait. Or maybe the bespoke WL trait isn't as good. On the external balance front, an army that includes psykers or chaplain types will have stronger faction identities than armies that don't, because armies without these units don't have the capacity to express their identity via bespoke psychic powers or prayers.

When you love a subfaction that happens to get stuck with a trait that doesn't feel as powerful as it should, that's when you look to synergies; for example, there's a DE Coven whose domain is fear- their chapter specific WL trait and Obsession tweak the fear of their enemies. Now obviously, other Covens have better traits- currently, a competitive minded tourney player might be inclined to say "Dark technomancers is auto take and every other coven trait is gak." But see, what I do is bring all the venoms with grisly trophies and take the agenda which allows me to modify objective markers so that they case fear. And suddenly that weak obsession has more teeth.

Sure. I know how synergies work, I however also know when it’s a farce. Take AL f.e. When you want decent cultists you need to pick a warlord trait, that’s the only synergy you have with cultists. In an army that has the most extensive use of cultists and should get more out of them than any other legion. Summa sumarum, you still pick cultists, because Cheaper than the lackluster CSM, but you don’t do it out of a narrative reason, and if you do, what you get is not an actual working AL cultist list, but a gimmick, and a bad one at that. Trust me , i tried. So narratively you got nothing out of the subfaction rules, incidentally and funnily enough you still have the best Plague marines in the game though. Basically i can't make the narrative choice work and that is the problem for a lot of CSM archetypes. And similarly shared by a lot of lists and codices.

Not Online!!! wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:

Some strats were previously available as abilities or equipment- I'm not terribly keen on those myself, to be honest. But most of my favourites were not; Blessed Bolts and Burning Descent are amazing, fluffy strats; they were never available as equipment or abilities, and they'd be far too powerful if they were. I love them because they feel like cinematic moments and story events. I can't use all of them every game- not even all of my favourites, so I really have to pick how and when to use them, which reinforces the feeling of being in a story. I also love the fact that there are subfaction specific strats to further define the characteristics and behaviour of that subfaction.

Cinematic is fine and dandy, but if it actively leads to disadvantages for other subfactions within the same dex to the point where it's x or bust like the CSM dex it's a disadvantage and further decreases customizability and narrative capabilities.

There's a bit to unpack here: we're talking about the cinematics of strats, so by "disadvantaging other subfactions" you're refering to the fact that you think all subfaction specific strats should be equal. As with subfaction traits, this is a fallacy; balance between factions doesn't have to mean that all subfaction strats have to be equally good; it means that the whole suite of faction locked abilities has to be equally good.

As a matter of fact no. I am talking about strats being so overpowered that you need access to them or else a whole slew of the codex just died as a valid (i.e. workable) option since the balance had to allocate a higher cost to the units.

The next is the "x or bust part" which again is more of an issue if winning is highest priority. I'll concede that there might be some subfactions in dexes with which I am less familiar- including the chaos dex, but in the dexes with which I am familiar, for the most part, every subfaction has at least one build that is viable enough for a non-tournament game.

The problem is that a faction should work as intended in a non tournament setting. When I then however am forced to build around specific stratagems (and spam them in the case of CSM… because great general design) and am locked in as with the WE exemple into a warlord trait. That’s not anymore my dudes.

The next is the decreasing customizability part. I'll concede that this is true enough for equipment strats that I won't argue the point, and I'll extend the concession to also include strats that were previously available as datacard abilities. That still leaves a lot of extra strats which in no way whatsoever impact customizability.

Actually yes they do, cacophony and VotWL singlehandedly make markbound non legion heretic astartes orders in 3 /4 times a non choice since the pts are with the stratagems in mind balanced.
And whilest one was at one point or the other an “equipment upgrade” the other was not.

And the last thing is that strat access limits narrative possibilities, which is certainly untrue. I've already explained how a strat is more of a story event than something that a unit can do all the time. A hydra that takes out an aircraft? Absolutely nothing special about that- it's all going according to plan. But burning a strat to give a unit an ability it wouldn't otherwise have in order to achieve the same effect might go down in the history of your army. In a Crusade game, I'm probably not marking that hydra for greatness, because it was just doing the job for which it was designed. But the unit that burned that strat demonstrated an uncommon level of tactical acumen to do what the did, and that's perfect story hook to mark them for greatness.

The greatness moment is allready there in the dice. As is the utter failure. There’s no need for the stratagem system in that regard. And it’s extremely cynical when it limits the options that should be important for a narrative army to f.e. 1 time useage. E.g. Red butchers. Or indirectly limits your narrative list, by forcing factions that don’t have access to certain strats to pay the bill for the times the strat is in a specific subfaction op. In a way it limits the narrative and customizability part of factions via externalising pts cost of units to other subfactions within that same dex. That is the problem.
Also i will give you an anecdote, i have a khorne berzerker champion with a powerfist that carries a huge trophy on his back. He earned that in a match by singlehandedly slaying a ctan shard when they were introduced, alone. Just through dice gods being that day with him.
If i could've popped the stratagems, the ctan shard wouldn't even have survived the 4 other khorne berzerkers chainswords, if one is to hyperbolicaly overdraw that situation.
Which was more impressive for a narrative?

Not Online!!! wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:

 aphyon wrote:

Some factions had hard restrictions to make them unique stand alone armies-deathwing/ravenwing, saim hann eldar, farsight enclave tau etc..

You can still do all of these things and better in 9th; you can also do this with Every. Single. Subfaction. In. The. Game. Not just the lucky ones or the poster boys.

No i can't. Because my faction literally doesn't exist anymore, respectively what exists is legends and not working as the faction is and was supposed to without even the same access to units. And my other faction has subfactions that are basically not workable with.

Now that I know that you're an R&H player, that goes a ways toward explaining your dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs. I do feel for you; you genuinely have more reason than most to dislike 8th/9th. I do empathize with you; in your shoes I'd be disillusioned too- after all, the exclusion of my preferred factions from 5th- 8th was a cause for my disillusionment too.

That’s only half the problem, after all until 6th late there was no real working R&H list either. But when the other part of the equation aka my CSM (2 types even) also run into the same problem because I can’t field my vision of my dudes then what’s the point for my narrative factions to play.

My empathy for your justifiable disillusionment makes it hard to say this next part without sounding like a jerk, but I feel like it should be pretty self evident to anyone whose army relies on Forgeworld to be functional that they are taking a risk by continuing to play that army. I like many of the models Forgeworld makes, but I HATE the fact that they aren't all just GW kits available through the same channels as GW products. I don't know if R&H had an actual GW dex in 6th or 7th, but if not, THAT is when your armies died, not 8th/ 9th. You may have been able to continue to play them with FW rules, just like the Tim Huckleberry/ Citadel Journal dex allowed me to keep playing GSC in 3rd ed- but I was well aware that without actual, official GW rules, the army was dead, and I'm surprised you didn't feel that way sooner than 8th about R&H.

Yes I had rules actual rules until 6-7th. So no, I can pinpoint where my faction died, solely on the back of GW. And you know what. They couldn’t even make the last Huzzah worth a damn. So no. GW is not interested in narrative and most certainly it has internal politicking issues, Because FW is GW. It’s just separated to be a boutique brand for monetary reasons.

Not Online!!! wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:

And yes, I too liked some of those options, I particularly LOVED Platoons for guard for example. But I feel like I have more options now than I ever did.

No, i have less options. Subfaction traits are even less encouraging to build a narrative army , since if they are internally badly balanced there's no reason to pick some of them. Same with stratagems. Unlike IA13 where the traits did cost pts via demagogue devotions and unlocked far more than just got handed freely i am also not encouraged to build my OWN background or USE the wierder niches aswell, simply because it's clear which is better.

Look, when you pick a subfaction for CSM, you get in addition to your chapter tactic ability, a bespoke warlord trait, relic, strat, and in many but not all cases a bespoke psychic power and prayer. As mentioned above, if one of these things that you get for that subfaction is weak, you look for synergies in the "available to everyone" units will help bolster that weakness. And while you may feel that IA13 did some things better for some armies than GW products do, IA products are not GW products, and anyone who really wants them to be treated as such is taking a risk. The thing about 8th/ 9th subfaction traits is that they exist for all armies. You've never been able to say that about any of the perks that some IA products granted to some armies, even if the IA rules that did exist happened to be particularly good for a handful of armies.

As for not being incentivized to build your own background, admittedly, that's best left to Crusade, which is why it's my preferred style of play.

Irrelevant in case of CSM. Because it’s such a shitshow thanks to the stratagem system that it runs into the same repeat cycle of how the match plays out. Sure I can adapt. I like my cultists, sure I can build a list around that. And why yes I can and did, just, there’s nothing unknown, the game is decided before the models hit the table and how it mostly plays out. It’s predictable and boring. It’s also an illusion of choice, what i mean by that, even if i intend to go for a cultists list it's still the same stratagems in the same cycle of use.
And the other parts. It’s entirely irrelevant that IA granted that. GW could’ve done the same for their mainline product. Indeed i dare say it was a superior system SINCE IT HAD PTS ALOCATED TO IT ONTOP OF STIPULATIONS. What GW designers instead did, because they couldn’t seemingly swallow the pill that FW produced better standard quality rules during 6-7th edition was to just outright politicking and backstabbing and replace it with a system which turned the game from “your dudes” to either Skin and trait appropriation or official TM Subfaction TM of your choice.

Not Online!!! wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:

This is your truth; I can't change that. It sounds like you've found some people to play with who will play older versions of the game and even allow you to take models from later editions backwards- good for you. I love this version of the game, so I'll keep playing it.

This is true, but don't proclaim that subfaction traits or stratagems did increase narrative capability. They did not or had significant balance cost to the point where balance becomes an issue even for the narrative side of the game-.

Well first of all, that's not how reciprocity works- I left space for your point of view, and had expected the same courtesy. Since you're not willing to entertain a possibility where both of our truths can stand in coexistence, I'll retract my previous offer; here's what that looks like:

It is an indisputable objective truth that all six Orders of the Adepta Sororitas are narratively different. It is also an objective truth that until 8th, there was no way to demonstrate this on the table. Same for each of the Kabals, Covens, Cults of the DE. While previous editions allowed build your own systems which approximated this level of fluff expressed via rules for all subfactions of a handful of armies, and for some subfactions of another handful of armies, there has never been a time before 8th when it was done for all subfactions of all armies, except for those which were hanging on by the most tenuous of Forgeworld threads, which most of us had the foresight to realize were already dead. And therefore, you are objectively wrong.

First off: I want to see where I was rude to you, I had an argument about your generalising proclamation that the new system improved narrative formations and quite easily pointed out that it is either fake choice, crippling the books for the other subfactions within due to bad balance of the system. So no, for non official subfactions the new system has done NOTHING.
Second off: the FW is not GW argument is a lie as already multiple times explained to people so I wont bother.
Third off: The narrative aspect of my units, armies , etc. has massively suffered. To the point that guard has to trigger “grenadiers” to use frag greanades properly. Truly great narrative system…

There. Did that feel better to you than my previous acceptance of your point of view?

I attacked your argument that the new system in GENERAL is better, it’s not. It’s in many cases FAKE choice, not your dudes anymore or outright broken. Its also corporate greed that plays into the new system, because GW can easier sell rules piecemeal. At no point did I attack your opinion that it is better. I just stated that it ISN’T a general improvement.
There was also absolutely no reason to behave like a absolute ass.

And for the record, or for those who might reply: Nowhere in any of my posts in this thread did I indicate that the innovations of 8th and 9th did anything for balance- I like balance, and think that the game should ideally try to move in that direction, but as a narrative focussed player, my priority is always the number of storytelling tools I have at my disposal, and I don't mind if that comes at a cost to balance; it's never been my priority. Second, I acknowledge that "faction identity" would have been a better choice of words than "faction trait" because faction identity unlocks bespoke WL Traits, Relics, stats and in some cases, psychic powers and prayers.

But that is not true. Simply because some factions have such massive internal problems thanks to the new system that faction identity simply doesn’t work anymore in some cases.
And yes it’s great potential, but the potential is for one tied to your faction being able to appropriate a skin for use that fits or being of said faction, or even existing at all, or be stuck with a collection that you once upon a time could use to your liking with upgrades and on unit abilities in a functioning manner which was easier to adapt to change.
And the other problem is , that it is GW and GW has right now highwater since 8th and 9th sofar have been massive successes, but the trait and subfaction system right now have been not good for the game and not good for the customer, and especially not good for balance. And that is why i am further massively critical of it.
It's nice to have supplements, it's less nice when they are completely broken (in either direction of the chart) or are simply cut content.

If anything that last point shows that regardless where you fall Penitent, that your enjoying 40k falls very much still within the case of if GW throws something out or not for your faction(s). And sure, you can argue that the subfaction traits and the corresponding options did increase your narrative capability. But it has nothing to do with narrative and everything to do with GW handing your faction the tools to do so, and if the tools are actually working. And especially the later is far from guaranteed nevermind that it potentially forces you to buy even more rulessources because of course....

As an aside, GW is also extremely tonedeaf, cue the last regimental standard.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Honestly it'd be unreasonable to assume GW will support every product ever created forever. Stuff eventually has to go at some point. I know I've annoyed people by pointing out that the Space Marine codex is way to overbloated and it's time to just pull the bandage off and start culling first born (I'm NOT saying all of them at once, but they could start with the old bikes and anything still in Finecast). That book has over a hundred datasheets and is in some desperate need of pruning.

Considering how out of balance most of their systems end up anyways I don't think it's expecting too much for them to keep supporting models they made with rules. It costs them literally nothing but some time and brain power and how much time does it take them to say, think up rules for Ogryns which have been pretty crap a long long time. Marines are pretty easy to point balance and give stats to, they are literally the standard by which everyone else measures themselves. So no I don't think it's at all unreasonable especially when you've paid them many hundreds of dollars for them. They aren't tech which breaks down, they are a table top representation for rules, rules should be easy for the workshop of games to make.