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'm kind of bored with it. I haven't played since the end of 8th, but everytime I think about dipping my toes back in I think about everything else I could be doing, including watching the paint on my models dry.

 vict0988 wrote:

KurtAngle2 wrote:
No, books didn't last an absurdly short time; in fact we've got 8TH books that are few months away from being 4 years old (IG/Eldar/Tyranids/CSM if you do not consider the 2.0 joke)

Why would you not consider the 2.0 joke? If people wanted to use the new models they had to get the new codex right?

CSM 2.0 was such a small "update" on the original 8th edition codex that gw told anyone who already had the original codex to not buy it. If that isn't a statement on how little "new" content there was in it, I don't know what is.

I find the edition pace of 40k to be lightning quick. New editions arrive and/or major edition upheavals occur faster than the edition has time to settle.
Whereas individual changes are very slow, weak armies having to wait years for a codex/supplement is a big problem as GW doesn't do any major changes any other way.

Which is really the worst of both worlds, people languish in poor rules for seemingly ages, but at the same time it seems that whatever you do get is worthless before you've even used it.

Part of the reason I like 30k is the rules are steady, but have sufficient depth that metas are still evolving, and releases make ripples in the meta without being OP.

For example, the balance between monsters and tanks has always been shaky in 7th (which is what HH is based on), but the design team so far has kept them not only at parity, but actually as different threats you have to prepare for. In 7th, it was always the case that anti-tank weapons could kill tanks, but there was no such thing as an anti-monster weapon, not really. Some things did Instant Death, but almost everything had access to Eternal Warrior somehow.

Anyways, in 30k there are anti-monster weapons that don't do much to tanks or infantry, there are anti-tank weapons that don't do much to monsters or infantry, and there are anti-infantry weapons that don't do much to tanks or monsters.

Now, within these categories there are sub categories (anti-superheavy/anti-transport/anti-flyer as examples for vehicles, anti-Gargantuan Creature/anti-multi-wound/Instant Death for monsters, and anti-heavy infantry/anti-horde etc. for infantry). But the point is that the game doesn't need new edition releases to keep people's armies evolving - just new books that subtly adjust the existing meta and can encourage people to buy that new unit they've been eyeing or whatever.

THAT SAID, HH not constantly changing itself/switching editions may be a player's paradise, but it's not a moneymaker in terms of selling the books. You only need to buy them once, and GW hates that

Pretty board. The missions are so samey, and the design just isn't great imo. Games are super predictable. 5th ed (which was generally a good edition) ran into a similar issue at the end of its lifespan, but that was much further on than where we are with 9th. The fact that Covid has forced GW into a slow release cycle doesn't even bother my group. It just feels like the core game itself wasn't quite ready for prime time. A lot of it could be fixed with some FAQs but I don't see it happening. Meh.


Also worried about my favorite personal army. I have a huge Tsons/Demons army built around summoning (just because I find it fun - it's not the best army in the world - just enjoyable for me from a narrative stand point). Judging from Death Guard, that army is about to take a hit (if/when that codex eventually comes out). It happens of course. I would just rather it not happen to my favorite army in an edition I already find to be a bit stale.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Part of the reason I like 30k is the rules are steady, but have sufficient depth that metas are still evolving, and releases make ripples in the meta without being OP.

For example, the balance between monsters and tanks has always been shaky in 7th (which is what HH is based on), but the design team so far has kept them not only at parity, but actually as different threats you have to prepare for. In 7th, it was always the case that anti-tank weapons could kill tanks, but there was no such thing as an anti-monster weapon, not really. Some things did Instant Death, but almost everything had access to Eternal Warrior somehow.

Anyways, in 30k there are anti-monster weapons that don't do much to tanks or infantry, there are anti-tank weapons that don't do much to monsters or infantry, and there are anti-infantry weapons that don't do much to tanks or monsters.

Now, within these categories there are sub categories (anti-superheavy/anti-transport/anti-flyer as examples for vehicles, anti-Gargantuan Creature/anti-multi-wound/Instant Death for monsters, and anti-heavy infantry/anti-horde etc. for infantry). But the point is that the game doesn't need new edition releases to keep people's armies evolving - just new books that subtly adjust the existing meta and can encourage people to buy that new unit they've been eyeing or whatever.

THAT SAID, HH not constantly changing itself/switching editions may be a player's paradise, but it's not a moneymaker in terms of selling the books. You only need to buy them once, and GW hates that

True. if only HH wasn't the metaphorical no-stuff oreo of the 40k setting.

All the "everything is space marines" that you know and enjoy from 40k, but with none of the "theoretically there could be other factions that are enjoyable and interesting" that's so pesky and inconvenient.

You know, 100% of my games have not been Marines on Marines, because I don't play marines...

...and yet I manage to have 5 armies from different factions (or that play sufficiently differently that they might as well be).

Actually the lack of change and updates to the games they play is one of the biggest factors I have seen for most people to stop playing whatever they are playing because it is not "supported".

People grows bored without new stuff, changes to the stuff they allready have, etc... and this applies to all online games but also most wargames I know. So I woldn't call it a player paradise.

 Galas wrote:
Actually the lack of change and updates to the games they play is one of the biggest factors I have seen for most people to stop playing whatever they are playing because it is not "supported".

People grows bored without new stuff, changes to the stuff they allready have, etc... and this applies to all online games but also most wargames I know. So I woldn't call it a player paradise.

Don't confuse a lack of "edition churn" with a lack of support.

New stuff is releasing for 30k fairly constantly, and it is clear GW supports it. Not to the degree it supports 40k, mind, but it isn't like the game is "Dead" and getting nothing. That sort of trickle of cool stuff is exactly what I was talking about when I said "new releases subtly change the meta".

That's totally different than ALRIGHT DROP EVERYTHING NEW EDITION. Tanks don't have hull points, Instant Death is gone, and psychic powers work totally differently! If your army doesn't work, you can have a slap-dash FAQ until your next Army List comes out. Oh, it came out eight months ago? Right, then, DROP EVERYTHING NEW EDITION!

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
You know, 100% of my games have not been Marines on Marines, because I don't play marines...

...and yet I manage to have 5 armies from different factions (or that play sufficiently differently that they might as well be).

I like xenos. The imperium is and always has been the least interesting aspect of 40k to me, so a system thats just imperium vs imperium with a liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiittle tiny hint of chaos thrown in there every once in a while is the exact opposite of an engaging setting for me.

The only reason I ever got into 30k extremely briefly was when they had admech stuff that did not exist in 40k, and making the mistake of investing money into that burned me harder than basically any other hobby purchasing decision I have ever made.

 the_scotsman wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
You know, 100% of my games have not been Marines on Marines, because I don't play marines...

...and yet I manage to have 5 armies from different factions (or that play sufficiently differently that they might as well be).

I like xenos. The imperium is and always has been the least interesting aspect of 40k to me, so a system thats just imperium vs imperium with a liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiittle tiny hint of chaos thrown in there every once in a while is the exact opposite of an engaging setting for me.

The only reason I ever got into 30k extremely briefly was when they had admech stuff that did not exist in 40k, and making the mistake of investing money into that burned me harder than basically any other hobby purchasing decision I have ever made.

Fair enough. I like non-Imperial humans and Chaos-humans a lot. I also like Mechanicum a lot. So those are the armies I own. You actually could make a fairly convincing "xenos" list thanks to the flexibility of the Militia/Cults list, if you really wanted, but nothing there quite fits with any of the specific 40k Xenos.

30k has the issue that it would've been trivially easy to implement some of the more obscure xenos.....
but then again in many cases i'd describe 30k as a missed opportunity. f.e. plastic expansion, mainlining some of units and increasing the design studios capability and size...

I won't derail the thread too much further (too late) but I'll say one last thing:

One of the things a "stable" ruleset allows for is the ability of skilled player-creators to deviate from the "Cult of Officialdom" that surrounds GW. For example, there is an excellent (and fairly well-balanced!) Craftworld Eldar fan-list for 30k that's even been printed and bound before. It's pretty well accepted, including by my local club.

There's also a pretty boss ruleset for orkz that i like. You can put a boss on a deffkopta, really appeals to my idea of makin a STORMWAAAAGGHH!!!

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
There's also a pretty boss ruleset for orkz that i like. You can put a boss on a deffkopta, really appeals to my idea of makin a STORMWAAAAGGHH!!!

You wanna shoot a road brother a link to those ork rules?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I won't derail the thread too much further (too late) but I'll say one last thing:

One of the things a "stable" ruleset allows for is the ability of skilled player-creators to deviate from the "Cult of Officialdom" that surrounds GW. For example, there is an excellent (and fairly well-balanced!) Craftworld Eldar fan-list for 30k that's even been printed and bound before. It's pretty well accepted, including by my local club.

Is that the Australius Ultima Sector one that's 240mb for an 80-page PDF for some reason? I was confused by that one, it reads like they took the 7e book and awkwardly shaved off Exarchs into HQ for no readily apparent reason.

1d4chan had an interesting article discussing challenges and recommended changes for converting the 7e xenos books over to 30k (Ork super-Nobz for people who want to use the really big Ironjawz models, a weird hybrid Eldar army where you can mix and match Corsairs/Craftworlds/DE/Exodites but almost everything's 0-1 without Rites of War to represent an Eldar civilization that hasn't yet solidified into its 40k form, expanded Necron small Lord mechanics to let them participate in the challenge/morale game more, that kind of thing), but 1d4chan seems to be down again.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
You know, 100% of my games have not been Marines on Marines, because I don't play marines...

...and yet I manage to have 5 armies from different factions (or that play sufficiently differently that they might as well be).

I like xenos. The imperium is and always has been the least interesting aspect of 40k to me, so a system thats just imperium vs imperium with a liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiittle tiny hint of chaos thrown in there every once in a while is the exact opposite of an engaging setting for me.

The only reason I ever got into 30k extremely briefly was when they had admech stuff that did not exist in 40k, and making the mistake of investing money into that burned me harder than basically any other hobby purchasing decision I have ever made.

Fair enough. I like non-Imperial humans and Chaos-humans a lot. I also like Mechanicum a lot. So those are the armies I own. You actually could make a fairly convincing "xenos" list thanks to the flexibility of the Militia/Cults list, if you really wanted, but nothing there quite fits with any of the specific 40k Xenos.

When we play 30K we allow people to play the xenos races that were around at the time that the great crusade did or could run into, so-necrons, eldar, orks, dark eldar since they have compatible codexes. you just cannot use named characters who were not around (mostly orks)

 aphyon wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
You know, 100% of my games have not been Marines on Marines, because I don't play marines...

...and yet I manage to have 5 armies from different factions (or that play sufficiently differently that they might as well be).

I like xenos. The imperium is and always has been the least interesting aspect of 40k to me, so a system thats just imperium vs imperium with a liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiittle tiny hint of chaos thrown in there every once in a while is the exact opposite of an engaging setting for me.

The only reason I ever got into 30k extremely briefly was when they had admech stuff that did not exist in 40k, and making the mistake of investing money into that burned me harder than basically any other hobby purchasing decision I have ever made.

Fair enough. I like non-Imperial humans and Chaos-humans a lot. I also like Mechanicum a lot. So those are the armies I own. You actually could make a fairly convincing "xenos" list thanks to the flexibility of the Militia/Cults list, if you really wanted, but nothing there quite fits with any of the specific 40k Xenos.

When we play 30K we allow people to play the xenos races that were around at the time that the great crusade did or could run into, so-necrons, eldar, orks, dark eldar since they have compatible codexes. you just cannot use named characters who were not around (mostly orks)

Cool. Last time I played 30k I brought my 2500 points of mechanicum models, but my opponent wanted to play 3000 points so he could field all the stuff he wanted to, so I went and grabbed my knight castigator because, hey, it's painted to match my mechanicum and its a forgeworld model, its probably designed for 30k.

He spent basically the whole game bitching about how the knight 'didnt belong in 30k' and '30k just isnt designed for superheavies' after having talked up how the game is just soooooooooooo much better than the garbage theyre shoveling at people with the trash 8th edition.

I'm guessing that's exactly what I'd get if I tried running one of the interesting armies' 7th edition rules in the precious baby 30k that is the most balanced and robust and best game system ever but also a delicate fabrige egg that will shatter into a zillion pieces the second anyone takes anything that isn't a T4 3+ armor profile into the game.

That person was definitely just whiny. Not saying 30k isn't a delicate fabrige egg that shatters at slight pressure, because it is (but the pressure in this case isn't knights, it's... quad mortars)

30k is like, ALL about Superheavies. Like, almost entirely the point is to have your primarch roll down the field and smash up space marines. If that's what the local playgroup is like, nah, I wouldn't have any interest in 30k either.

I feel like what you'd run into if you tried to play orks or eldar in 30k is a marine player with 2 sicarans and 3 quad mortars is going to cackle gleefully as you remove every model in your army by the handful.

Well...On one hand the person grumbling about how 30k isn't designed for superheavies is being pretty whiny (it is, and if your 3,000pt list can't address a single Knight something's very wrong), but the Castigator specifically is pretty format-warping because of the AP3 hellstorm torrent template. 30k does sort of break down if you bring cover-ignoring low-AP templates (Castigator, Malcador Infernus, Typhon siege tank), or if you don't warn your opponent before bringing a Cybernetica or Questoris core detachment (one Knight's fine, six are a problem), or if you bring Primarch's Chosen to a 1,000pt game, but it'll handle most 40k xenos books just fine. Maybe not wraithcannon/scatterbike Craftworlders, and probably not Tau, but most anything else should do fine.

(For quad-mortars they're mostly a problem because you need to resolve four twin-linked small blasts per gun per shot, but if you use the beta rules where it fires one large blast they're much less irritating.)

Castigator is the one with the pewpew gatling gun. Acheron is the flamethrower one.

Rihgu wrote:
Castigator is the one with the pewpew gatling gun. Acheron is the flamethrower one.

My mistake. Castigator ought to be just fine.

I'm not sure that's a problem with 40k and moreso with the way large vehicles are represented in the game. If they were done like Titans in the old Epic 2nd edition, and you could do things like immobilize them or shoot off their weapons, or have them do interesting things when damaged (more interesting than the 1/2, 1/4, 1/6 penalities to WS/BS/S), then they wouldn't be quite so fun-sucking as they are.

I think people have mentioned that stuff is more lethal, but when your only option for units to address other units is by trying to remove them from the board rather than some kind of suppression or engagement, it makes for a bit of a crapshoot.

Nurglitch wrote:
I'm not sure that's a problem with 40k and moreso with the way large vehicles are represented in the game. If they were done like Titans in the old Epic 2nd edition, and you could do things like immobilize them or shoot off their weapons, or have them do interesting things when damaged (more interesting than the 1/2, 1/4, 1/6 penalities to WS/BS/S), then they wouldn't be quite so fun-sucking as they are.

I think people have mentioned that stuff is more lethal, but when your only option for units to address other units is by trying to remove them from the board rather than some kind of suppression or engagement, it makes for a bit of a crapshoot.

That's one of the problems those of us who favor the old system prefer. vehicles had rules that made them feel like vehicles. part of the problem with lethality is the fact that you used to have to bring AT weapons to deal with armor, but with the armor reduction system and the move to make all vehicle monsterous creatures. mid power anti-infantry weapons with a high ROF now kill vehicles (and everything else) better than AT weapons.

 aphyon wrote:
but with the armor reduction system and the move to make all vehicle monsterous creatures. mid power anti-infantry weapons with a high ROF now kill vehicles (and everything else) better than AT weapons.

this already happend long before the change to vehicles, it was 5th Edition with the GK Codex were Anti-Infantry weapons became the best AT weapons
and GW never solved that problem because they never saw it a game-play problem and to make everything a monster was one of the better changes (as what became a vehicle, a walker and a monster was random anyway)

 aphyon wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:
I'm not sure that's a problem with 40k and moreso with the way large vehicles are represented in the game. If they were done like Titans in the old Epic 2nd edition, and you could do things like immobilize them or shoot off their weapons, or have them do interesting things when damaged (more interesting than the 1/2, 1/4, 1/6 penalities to WS/BS/S), then they wouldn't be quite so fun-sucking as they are.

I think people have mentioned that stuff is more lethal, but when your only option for units to address other units is by trying to remove them from the board rather than some kind of suppression or engagement, it makes for a bit of a crapshoot.

That's one of the problems those of us who favor the old system prefer. vehicles had rules that made them feel like vehicles. part of the problem with lethality is the fact that you used to have to bring AT weapons to deal with armor, but with the armor reduction system and the move to make all vehicle monsterous creatures. mid power anti-infantry weapons with a high ROF now kill vehicles (and everything else) better than AT weapons.

Ummm. Have you seen the AT weapons that armies are running around with nowadays? What "mid power anti-infantry weapons with a high ROF" kill vehicles better than a multi-melta or dark lance?

Yes i have and aside from the super broken things like eradicators the increased fixed damage of things like autocannons and heavy bolters (hell in 8th stalker bolters in the hands of my friends crimson fists murdered my vehicles) make them good at killing everything. prior to the 8th ed switch over a leman russ or a land raider never worried about such things

 aphyon wrote:
Yes i have and aside from the super broken things like eradicators the increased fixed damage of things like autocannons and heavy bolters (hell in 8th stalker bolters in the hands of my friends crimson fists murdered my vehicles) make them good at killing everything. prior to the 8th ed switch over a leman russ or a land raider never worried about such things

True, AV14 boxes were tough to kill by shooting. My poor ork vehicles, including battlewagons, were litterally paper things though due to AV10-12 on some or all sides and open topped. In 5-7th it wasn't uncommon to lose 1-3 Battlewagons just to 3 lascannons shots, now it takes lots of anti tank to bring down the same vehicles. However in combat a single dude with power klaw had very good odds to one-shot a Leman Russ and now he barely scratches it. And a single hit could incapacitate the whole vehicle for a turn or even the rest of the battle.

Overall vehicles are way tougher now, except those who were full AV14. Vehicles are even more efficient as they can move and fire without penalty, while in older editions they could fire with all their weapons only if they didn't move at all, or just a single weapon if they moved at minimum distance, and arcs limited their shooting a lot. Not to mention that they can fire in combat and automatically disengage from tarpits. In older editions a single dude that was locked in combat with a tank used to lock the vehicle forever.

Point of order: in older editions, only walkers could be locked in combat. Tanks could walk away unimpeded and basically ignored attacking infantry (unless they penetrated it's armor ofc).

In general Blackie I think you are lying. It takes 18 Space Marine lascannons to kill a 4 Hull Point BW in 7rh, and 36 if it has cover or a safe (KFF is 27 shots). Otherwise, it could Explode, but there is only a .018% chance of that happening (i.e. about one in five thousand Space Marines with Lascannons). Other damage results were more common of course.

Additionally, vehicle movement was more complex than you were letting on. Depending on the edition, some could fire all guns on the move, some could fire one, some none.

Additionally, 9th edition vehicles aren't really much safer. Certain weapons are more effective in 9th than in 7th/HH (e.g. Shadows word). They really aren't all that comparable except the whole tanks in combat thing

Well, a BW was AV12 in the side and open topped. So blowing it up with a single shot was super easy. A single melta hit from a dop pod was an almost guarenteed Explode! result.

In my experience I now play against lists that have twice or three times the anti tank that I faced in 5-7th and yet my vehicles last way longer without being forced to spam a crazy amount of them.