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.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
i like how gw once again paywalls the pts for the factions in what ammounts to a balance patch in literally every other game, which should be free but alas...
But considering that i should supposedly be willing to pay 58 CHF for 5 slightly larger intercessors if i were to ever collect marines....

I am not surprised. Just disapointed how people can defend that gak company.

What's there to defend? Not a single person buys this pair of books for the points, whether you use their app or battlescribe, you don't need it.

The only value is having updated tournament missions in with a small rulebook attached to it.

And if one only cares about points we all know battlescribe will have them like a day or two later let alone easily accessible videos with all the points usually easily readable.

Aren't the points values available for free on the Warhammer Community sites, under the FAQ downloads?

It was the case exceptionnaly at the beginning of the year (Munitorum Field Manual 2021 mk 1). But they are returning to their habit of selling the prices listing (together with the new missions and rulebook).
Granted, we have an almost complete tournament fieldable rulebook as a Chapter Approved publication. Chapter Approved during 8th were not as complete.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Nah. Even at it's worst, 40K was always leaps and bounds ahead of some of the crap I had the misfortune to try of the years like Infinity or Warmahordes. And current 40K isn't the worst the game has been.

Infinity at least seems to know it wants to be mind-bafflingly complex. It revels in that. It is not for everyone - I'm like 78% sure it's not going to be for me ever - but it has an intricacy and, more importantly, a clarity of focus that 40K absolutely lacks. I can understand and respect if not embrace the kind of fun it is trying to provide.

I cannot do so with 40K. 40K simplified its core engine then turned right around and undid the value of that simplification by pounding out codex after supplement after warzone book; it's trying to somehow cater to the casual player, the narrative player, and the competitive wargamer, and is really just not a good game on any of those fronts

 Sim-Life wrote:
Disclaimer: I still think 9th edition is NOT fun to play. But for a long time 40k WAS fun, despite not being the best game around.

Fun is good! I liked 3rd/4th myself, I had tons of fun with it! I don't mean that 9th 40K is the worst game because of low skill factor or lack of tactical depth; I mean worst, as in it succeeds neither being a battle of wits nor a barrel of laughs, whereas pre-6th 40K at least usually succeeded in being the latter.

I agree that it feels like 40k is over complicating its simplicity. Like, just figuring out how many attacks a marine makes in a given phase feels more like a math problem than a statistic.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I agree that it feels like 40k is over complicating its simplicity. Like, just figuring out how many attacks a marine makes in a given phase feels more like a math problem than a statistic.

This is like 40k in a nutshell. Painfully over complicated simplicity.

They made it more simple and stream lined and people thought it was dull a bit, then they take the foot off the break and over complicated it steadily going down hill. Removed USRs but then cram even more into a million differently named but very similar rules. Add to this a million strats and unit stat lines that can vary from turn to turn a good deal based on actions and you have the worlds most complicated rules light game.

Well, my 40k projects have all stalled and I can't muster the enthusiasm to even try making lists.

So probably not in a great spot.


I know that some people are praising the new DE book as being the second coming of Christ but I fear for me it crushed what little enthusiasm I had left.

Yes, I'm sure it's strong and efficient and no doubt tournament players are falling in love with it. But I'm not a tournament player and have no interest in the book being hyper-competitive.

Instead, I see a book that's bloated in all the areas I couldn't give a damn about, but which has only become more shallow in the areas I do care about. We have a mass of stratagems and gimmicks, yet only 3 generic HQs, of which only 1 has actual options. The Archon can pick from 4 melee weapons which are all equally crap, and the Haemonculus lost his wargear selection entirely. Even in terms of artefacts the selection is laughable. There's a great big picture in the centre of the artefact section to try and hide how bare it is and how little effort actually went into it. But photocopier goes brrrrrr, I guess. But in addition to being pathetic to begin with, they're so badly designed (on top of HQs that, barring the Succubus, are also hossibly designed) that the Archon, for example, has maybe 1 viable build with all the other wargear options and warlord traits being pointless window-dressing. Also, 11 years now and still no new units. This for a book that lost 3 elites and about 10 HQs.

I imagine I'll get yet more hate for still not worshipping the DE book as being the best thing GW has ever printed and the best book in the history of humankind, but no matter how much others continue to praise it, I can't change the fact that it bores me to sleep. Nor that it has successfully killed my interest in playing 40k (something not even the 7th edition heap of dung managed).

That said, while I put a lot of blame on my faction books, I can't help but also note that the game in general seems to be moving further and further away from the game I started, and into a style of gameplay that I simply can't get invested in.

 vipoid wrote:
Well, my 40k projects have all stalled and I can't muster the enthusiasm to even try making lists.

So probably not in a great spot.


I know that some people are praising the new DE book as being the second coming of Christ but I fear for me it crushed what little enthusiasm I had left.

Yes, I'm sure it's strong and efficient and no doubt tournament players are falling in love with it. But I'm not a tournament player and have no interest in the book being hyper-competitive.

Instead, I see a book that's bloated in all the areas I couldn't give a damn about, but which has only become more shallow in the areas I do care about. We have a mass of stratagems and gimmicks, yet only 3 generic HQs, of which only 1 has actual options. The Archon can pick from 4 melee weapons which are all equally crap, and the Haemonculus lost his wargear selection entirely. Even in terms of artefacts the selection is laughable. There's a great big picture in the centre of the artefact section to try and hide how bare it is and how little effort actually went into it. But photocopier goes brrrrrr, I guess. But in addition to being pathetic to begin with, they're so badly designed (on top of HQs that, barring the Succubus, are also hossibly designed) that the Archon, for example, has maybe 1 viable build with all the other wargear options and warlord traits being pointless window-dressing. Also, 11 years now and still no new units. This for a book that lost 3 elites and about 10 HQs.

I imagine I'll get yet more hate for still not worshipping the DE book as being the best thing GW has ever printed and the best book in the history of humankind, but no matter how much others continue to praise it, I can't change the fact that it bores me to sleep. Nor that it has successfully killed my interest in playing 40k (something not even the 7th edition heap of dung managed).

That said, while I put a lot of blame on my faction books, I can't help but also note that the game in general seems to be moving further and further away from the game I started, and into a style of gameplay that I simply can't get invested in.

See what you miss is actual customizability and viability in options to mix up how somehting actually plays, rather than pressing button sped ressource and get immediate effect.
And it's pretty common phenomenon. Heck the SM codex f.e. is full of single loadout change separate Datasheets that all represent the same unit type...
Or in other words, GW killed of customizability for streamlining sake and managed to feth up.

I feel like it's in a pretty good place right now, actually. I do wish the disparity in the age of troop models and the like between Space Marines and Xenos would be resolved. Guardians are ugly.

 vipoid wrote:

That said, while I put a lot of blame on my faction books, I can't help but also note that the game in general seems to be moving further and further away from the game I started, and into a style of gameplay that I simply can't get invested in.

Current functioning DE lists are very similar to 5th-7th edition ones actually. Models and gameplay aren't really much different.

 vipoid wrote:


I know that some people are praising the new DE book as being the second coming of Christ but I fear for me it crushed what little enthusiasm I had left.

Yes, I'm sure it's strong and efficient and no doubt tournament players are falling in love with it. But I'm not a tournament player and have no interest in the book being hyper-competitive.

Actually, I find the Crusade content to be the best thing about the book. DE's Crusade content is far and away cooler than anything we've seen so far. The Admech stuff looks really interesting too, but I think DE is still going to end up on top- the Necromunda style minigame that is DE Crusade rules is just really hard to beat.

 vipoid wrote:

Instead, I see a book that's bloated in all the areas I couldn't give a damn about, but which has only become more shallow in the areas I do care about. We have a mass of stratagems and gimmicks, yet only 3 generic HQs, of which only 1 has actual options. The Archon can pick from 4 melee weapons which are all equally crap, and the Haemonculus lost his wargear selection entirely.

Equipment options are limited. Non equipment options have never been so numerous. While there may be only three generic HQ unit entries, each of those generic HQ's could also be made a Master or an Ascendant; the numbers of these types of HQ's that can be included in army are more limited, but because they exist, there are technically 9 different HQ options. And each Master level HQ gets a specialized retinue now- another thing I personally really liked about the book.

 vipoid wrote:

Even in terms of artefacts the selection is laughable. There's a great big picture in the centre of the artefact section to try and hide how bare it is and how little effort actually went into it.

You know there are 13 relics that aren't in the artefact section, right? One for each of 10 subfactions and one for each master level character. Same way there are 13 strategems that aren't in the strat section and 13 Warlord traits that aren't in the warlord trait section. So what you are ACTUALLY seeing is not a lack of effort, but a superior system for organizing the information; you can now see everything that defines a specific subfaction on one page instead of flipping through 3 different sections to do the same thing.

 vipoid wrote:

But in addition to being pathetic to begin with, they're so badly designed (on top of HQs that, barring the Succubus, are also hossibly designed) that the Archon, for example, has maybe 1 viable build with all the other wargear options and warlord traits being pointless window-dressing.

This is a matter of opinion, but personally, I disagree- especially where warlord traits are concerned; admittedly, sub-faction and master level WL traits tend to be harder to choose from than the generic ones.

 vipoid wrote:

Also, 11 years now and still no new units. This for a book that lost 3 elites and about 10 HQs.

This I can certainly get behind. I do think the book could have gone further in restoring some of what was lost- I really miss some of those named HQ's and the mounted HQ options, especially for Succubi, make a lot of sense. On the other side of the fence, I choose to think of Master level HQ's, Ascendant HQ's and favoured retinues as different units, even though they don't have separate data cards. Certainly these designations open space for conversions, and they certainly perform differently on the battlefield. And from that perspective, the Haemoxcytes actually are "new" unit concept I think; we had Trueborn and Blood Brides before, but I think that back in those supposed glory days, Wracks got shafted.

 vipoid wrote:

I imagine I'll get yet more hate...

No hate here- hope this doesn't read as hate. Some personal disagreement, some cases where I feel like the written argument provided is over simplified (judging the Relic selection based on the Relic section of the book, for example). But definitely not hate. This post probably won't change your mind; I'm not even sure it's intended to- you have a right to your opinion.

 vipoid wrote:

... for still not worshipping the DE book as being the best thing GW has ever printed and the best book in the history of humankind...

No, I think that people who like the book might try to soften your conviction that it's terrible. It does happen to be my personal favourite 9th ed dex so far, but I also acknowledge that's mostly because I'm a Crusade player, and the Crusade content in this book is hands down the best we've seen (so far).

 vipoid wrote:


but no matter how much others continue to praise it, I can't change the fact that it bores me to sleep. Nor that it has successfully killed my interest in playing 40k (something not even the 7th edition heap of dung managed).

I'm sorry that you feel that way. Frankly though, if any book was going to do that I would have expected it to be the 8th ed dex, because it suffers from all of the same problems that you describe, while also containing none of the positive elements that I've tried to highlight. There are other DE players who don't love this book, but I'm not sure I've met any that say it isn't at least a slight improvement on 8th.

 vipoid wrote:

That said, while I put a lot of blame on my faction books, I can't help but also note that the game in general seems to be moving further and further away from the game I started, and into a style of gameplay that I simply can't get invested in.

I think this is the strongest and most salient point right here, and I can't fault you for it- I totally get where you're coming from. I took a break from the game during 6 and 7, so I can't comment on those editions, but certainly with 5th and earlier, customization was handled differently- primarily by load out choices and unnamed "build your own" style options that differed greatly from one codex to another. Some people prefer that and always will, and nothing the rest of us say will change that.

Now, customizability is determined by traits that interact with each other, and the types of traits that exist have been standardized across factions. I love the fact that for the first time in history, no faction has to go without sub-faction rules (actually, it was 8th that did that- 9th is just continuing the trend). Right from 2nd ed, it always bothered me tremendously that some factions were lucky to be deemed important enough to get differentiated subfactions while others were not.

Similarly, in older editions, core rules allowed us to do things that are now achievable through other means... Typically strats. Some people prefer having the option as a core rule; again, I get that- when it's a core rule, every army can do it. It also feels like it's own action, rather than one of a set of sub-types of option.

Personally, I just see strats as giving me a greater number of things I can do at any given moment. Some people see "Using a strat" as a single thing, even though there may be 10-15 different strats that a given unit can use at a particular time. I get it- I understand that feeling, especially since some strats don't actually feel like an action, but rather a modifier to an action. Maybe it's because I also play CCG's that I have an easier time seeing the choice to use a strat as a tactic; there are a lot of folks who can't make themselves see it that way. They talk about 8th/9th as having fewer tactical options than previous versions, because to them, it doesn't feel like a tactic if it's not a core rule. Personally, I don't get that... to me, a Fly-by Attack is very definitely a tactic, as is Fire and Fade, or any of the 10-15 other things I can choose from. Similarly, deciding whose aura(s) to stand in and when is something I also don't have trouble seeing as a "tactical decision," though lots of people here must have trouble seeing it that way based on their comments.

There is a definite, and undeniable difference in feel. And some folks are going to prefer one and some are going to prefer the other.

Nurglitch wrote:
Aren't the points values available for free on the Warhammer Community sites, under the FAQ downloads?

At present, yes. Whether or not it stays that way is unknown. GW could certainly come out and state a such if they will, but I suspect they'd prefer the marginal increase in sales until then.

Negative for me, just because I really don’t love the way they’re taking the whole setting and central mechanics. I get that 7th’s balance wasn’t great, but to me I felt like it was a better representation of a meat grinder battle with stuff like templates, armor facings, the vehicle damage table, etc. Now it feels like with all the auras and stratagems and chapter tactic equivalents and stuff, it just feels too card gamey, which just doesn’t fit the setting imo. That and I just feel like the game has lost its identity sort of, which I feel is most obviously shown through the primaries marines. The whole imperium is meant to be kinda inefficient and over engineered, but they feel just too “clean” in terms or their aesthetic, like they’d fit better in Star Wars or halo.

@vipoid: I think the 9th ed dark eldar book is fun to an extent but the game of 40k is just a mixture of an arms race with each new codex out-doing the last. Also i'm kind of annoyed at GW making dark eldar the top tier faction only because now i can't buy any of my chosen faction's stuff and while i want my army to be decent i don't want every WAAC player which codex jumps to every OP faction to be playing a faction i've played since at least 7th edition back when it sucked and i played the faction because i liked the aesthetic and playstyle of the army. I always choose aesthetic (art style, models and lore) and playstyle of army over what's the most broken OP at any given moment in the game. I just want each faction to be balanced and to win based on the skill of the player rather than by faction or a faction's specific army build. Like how fun is it to face the same general list each time. I think in 8th for tau it was broadsides, riptides with heavy burst cannons and drones every time. How boring is it to see the same build every time? I mean i understand some units combining better with other units but only for different viable builds of the same faction. Seeing Fly-rants as the only viable Tyranid build in like 7th ed for a faction that relied on melee, hordes, big monsters and Synapse is quite unfitting for the army's normal background.

I also pretty much swear GW don't care about any of the old factions other than Sisters (due to certain cultural shifts), Marines (because they're the most popular army) and Necrons (because marines needed a xenos or chaos army to kill in each new edition and necrons were the popular bad guy army that got pulled from the hat).

That said there are a lot of factions GW just doesn't care about anymore like any Space Marines +1 faction (custodes, dark angels, chaos marines, blood angels, grey knights, etc.) and some new armies also oddly don't have many units (harlequins, ynnari, custodes).

GW also hates long term players, they have constant lore changes, discontinuing old armies, killing off WHFB, changing the dark fantasy theme to more Good Guy vs Bad Guy theme (esp. Fantasy going to AoS), prices, constant lack of faction balance (i've heard GW does this on purpose to make you buy the new hotness which makes sense but doesn't make a balanced game), IP name changes that businesses love and customers hate (Seraphon which used to be Lizardmen? Sigmarite ore?) and more i can't remember.

It's probably less hating 40k so much as hating GW practices. Like maybe i just need to play a new army or play against less "competitive" players that have to buy the best army faction and use the most broken build to win rather than using skill. It doesn't help people use Net lists rather than their own tactics and list building skill.

I do think that in any discussion it is worth the effort to distinguish "options" and "viable options" because is is especially easy to get mixed up when reading. Everyone knows that codex have tons of -options- but that doesn't really matter, what matters is how many -viable- options they have.

Of course that also needs to come with the clarification that no, viable does not mean 'can win tournaments' since so many people strictly separate things into the categories of 'wins tourneys' and 'garbage'.

AOS has vastly more dark fantasy shades of gray good guys doing bad stuff/double crossing each other than 40k had had since the lore in 7th edition.

Also "certain cultural shifts." Bitch harder.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:


I also pretty much swear GW don't care about any of the old factions other than Sisters (due to certain cultural shifts), Marines (because they're the most popular army) and Necrons (because marines needed a xenos or chaos army to kill in each new edition and necrons were the popular bad guy army that got pulled from the hat).

Huh. The eight or so new kits on the way for Orks must have messed with that theory a bit eh?

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

That said there are a lot of factions GW just doesn't care about anymore like any Space Marines +1 faction (custodes, dark angels, chaos marines, blood angels, grey knights, etc.) and some new armies also oddly don't have many units (harlequins, ynnari, custodes).

Dark Angels and Blood Angels have their books already, and almost every new Primaris kit released this edition can slot into those armies, so I'm not sure how you justify that point of view. We've also discovered that GK should have been out already; it looks like they're getting a new sculpt of Crowe and a vs. box- sure it isn't a full release by any stretch of the imagination, but it's something. No edition ever has included a full refresh for every faction.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

GW also hates long term players, they have constant lore changes, discontinuing old armies, killing off WHFB, changing the dark fantasy theme to more Good Guy vs Bad Guy theme (esp. Fantasy going to AoS), prices, constant lack of faction balance (i've heard GW does this on purpose to make you buy the new hotness which makes sense but doesn't make a balanced game), IP name changes that businesses love and customers hate (Seraphon which used to be Lizardmen? Sigmarite ore?) and more i can't remember.

GW doesn't hate anyone who might give them money.

The 8th edition offered us tangible proof that GW loves old players; during that edition, we saw the return of Rogue Traders, the Ambull, the Zoat, a new Inquisitor and the return of Necromunda- not to mention the return of GSC which has been dead since 2nd edition, and the redesign of Sisters, which had been functionally dead since 2003. Admittedly, 9th hasn't followed that trend... yet. But that doesn't mean it won't happen.

Discontinuing old armies? Look, I feel bad for the folks who hung on for so many years playing barely functional FW only stuff because they hoped it would make a comeback. But there are no factions that were fully supported by Games Workshop in 7th which were cut in 8th or 9th. And I know some people who play those armies will fight me on this- they will swear up and down that FW = GW. For many of us, that may be true- I suspect FW's footprint in the UK and even in the EU is bigger than it is on this side of the pond. But to a Canadian kid looking to buy plastic in a GW store, FW might as well be on another planet.

Name changes? Okay, I don't know about fantasy, so I can't say whether or not "Seraphon" existed in the lore before it became the default name for the faction, but Astra Militarum is quite old- it was always there, but no one used it. And if name changes are important for keeping the company strong enough to keep delivering, then so be it. If third party knock-offs take the company below the threshold where they can bang out a codex every month and some models every month, I'd gladly call a faction just about anything to prevent that from happening.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

It's probably less hating 40k so much as hating GW practices. Like maybe i just need to play a new army or play against less "competitive" players that have to buy the best army faction and use the most broken build to win rather than using skill. It doesn't help people use Net lists rather than their own tactics and list building skill.

Agree with this a lot!

Sorry if I come across as a white knight- I don't like all of GW's decisions either, believe me (Particularly the refusal to FAQ single wound old marines). I still think they're getting more right than they are wrong. Once we get all the dexes that are coming, THEN I will be able to pass judgment on the edition as whole.

 the_scotsman wrote:
AOS has vastly more dark fantasy shades of gray good guys doing bad stuff/double crossing each other than 40k had had since the lore in 7th edition.

Also "certain cultural shifts." Bitch harder.

You know there's a certain malus darkblade story where a baddie throws a woman's flayed face at a prisoner that was her boyfriend after they tortured her right (i think it was sexual torture too)? Old fantasy had some rather messed up things. I heard the original Beastmen lore came about by nobles that had a crazy party that included bestiality that they may or may not have dedicated to the Gods and the Chaos Gods responded by making the first incarnations of beastmen possibly being birthed out of the animals themselves.

Seriously. That was the absolute nicest way i could put it to keep it fairly neutral one way or another and you responded horribly to it. It's true. 16 years of no updates and then only an update once the shift takes place. I'm sorry dude but something happened and there are a lot more armies that got less attention (new units and such) that don't fit that sort of aesthetic.

@penitent jake: You know a part of me wants to be as positive as you but if you've been into the hobby for like 10+ years like i have then you start to see a major shift in the game that you just dislike. Aesthetic change, rules, lore and a lot of things. I had a love-hate relationship with GW right up until they killed WHFB and then they insulted the player base for it. I was mad but i stuck through it and then they insulted the player base again for something else with the new management. GW isn't a very nice company. I've probably seen Creative Assembly treat Warhammer Fantasy with far more love and respect than GW had for most of the time i played WHFB.

Macharius562 wrote:
Negative for me, just because I really don’t love the way they’re taking the whole setting and central mechanics. I get that 7th’s balance wasn’t great, but to me I felt like it was a better representation of a meat grinder battle with stuff like templates, armor facings, the vehicle damage table, etc. Now it feels like with all the auras and stratagems and chapter tactic equivalents and stuff, it just feels too card gamey, which just doesn’t fit the setting imo. That and I just feel like the game has lost its identity sort of, which I feel is most obviously shown through the primaries marines. The whole imperium is meant to be kinda inefficient and over engineered, but they feel just too “clean” in terms or their aesthetic, like they’d fit better in Star Wars or halo.

+40K

I am right there with you. funny note i just noticed the admech topic about GW removing options again for unit loadout-mono-pose/mono-kit seems to be where they are going.


I remember back in the day when GW encouraged kitbashing and creative modeling to the point they actually had a bits service so you could personalize your dudes. glad i kept all those spare bits....and play an older edition of the game that GW will never nerf.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I do think that in any discussion it is worth the effort to distinguish "options" and "viable options" because is is especially easy to get mixed up when reading. Everyone knows that codex have tons of -options- but that doesn't really matter, what matters is how many -viable- options they have.

I agree that this is a worthy distinction but unfortunately the DE HQs (with the sole exception of the Succubus) suffer regardless of which one you go with.

In terms of options, the Archon has lost a ton of wargear, including no small number of viable options. Jetbikes and Skyboards were both taken when available, as were weapons like the Punisher, as were options like Ghostplate Armour, Clone Field, Combat Drugs, Soul Trap etc., etc..

However, in spite of his options being whittled down to a mere 4 melee weapons and 2 ranged weapons, he's still lacking for viable options. None of his melee weapons are worth a damn. Not one. This is not an exaggeration. Every singe one of them is complete and utter garbage, to the point that he can't even average a single Marine kill per combat, regardless of which one you pick. Oh, and while other characters at least get Master Crafted weapons with slightly improved statlines, Archons are stuck with run of the mill Splinter Pistols. Fear his one shot at S* AP0 D1 Poison 4+!

And then you have the Haemonculus, who has no options at all - viable or otherwise. Something I will note, however, is that despite his wargear being completely fixed, GW still managed to make one of his weapons entirely worthless (since another of his weapons is just outright better).

This might not be so bad if DE were spoilt for choice when it came to HQs. Instead, however, these represent 2/3 of DE's entire generic HQ lineup. It doesn't exactly make for thrilling customisation for those of us who liked that aspect of 40k.

@vipoid: Not to mention the archon's huskblade's strength or damage potential has steadily gone downhill since maybe 5th edition. If i recall huskblades are now an archon's base strength....of 3. I mean they made hex rifles good but huskblades were good in 5th and in 7th if you took like 4 archons in a group you could kill a stormsurge like i did with em.

Shadowfield also went from amazing in 7th to kinda crap in 8th and 9th. I mean i think in 5th it was bad as well but 8th is definitely the edition when characters got weaker in melee and i think 9th sorta improved that.

Don't get me wrong. If you boost an archon, haemonculus or succubus they might be ok. The archon warlord trait ancient evil allows them to force an enemy unit in close combat to always fight last. That's pretty huge actually. Sadly no longer are the days when an archon or 2 or 3 can wipe out a towering stormsurge.

I understand where you're coming from. Our army both became more powerful but we lost options. Technically we regained bloodbrides and trueborn and got wrack elites (which i might never use elite wracks anyway). At the same time we lost hex rifles on haemonculus and we have yet to actually gain new weapons or new units though we do get a couple new models.

@Flamingkillamajig: Funny. I actually started playing in 1989. When the GSC came back at the tag end of 7th, it bought a lot of forgiveness- I've been bashing GW since 3rd ed for killing that army- I never expected it to return.

@vipoid: Archons can still take combat drugs and soul traps... You just have to stop playing matched to do it. Both are Crusade Requisitions. And for the record, I liked Succubi on reaver bikes and skyboards because Succubi would learn to use those things in the arena. But I never thought Archons should have access without a story to back it up.

Crusade is also the cure for boring weapons; slap an upgrade on any weapon- there are lots to choose from.

Here's an experiment for you; I can't try it right now because I'm away from my books for a while. But pick your favourite edition, and build your favourite Archon. Then do the same in 9th. Then fight them.

I suspect what you'll find is that the 9th guy wins- because all your cool gear doesn't stack- take every item in the list if you want but how many can you use at a time?

Whereas: my Master status stacks with my relic, which stacks with my WL Trait, which stacks with my strats, which stack with my Kabal trait- I won't include auras, because that brings in extra models.

And even if you do come out on top, we'll need to have the conversation again after I gain all 4 of my battle honours- because they stack too.

I get it- I know that equipment is something easily relatable and easy to model. But equipment is usually either/or; if there are 10 pieces of equipment you can take, you've got 10 options. If you've got 5 strats, 6 WL traits, 3 relics and 2 upgrades, you've got 180 combinations.

Previous editions did not have more options- they just had more equipment.

I'm not sure what the state of 40k is right now, but as soon as I've finished my 3 week correspondence course "How to make sense of the multi-layered rules in the new Adetpus Mechanicus Codex", I'll let you know.

@penitent jake: I'll admit I didn't expect you to have started so long ago. I will admit squatting an army sucks. F to pay respects for bretonnia and tomb kings and to an extent whfb. I know fantasy is coming back but GW still won't let most gw stores I know play 8th ed whfb despite bringing it back. I mean it's been dead 6 years and I've been waiting. Part of me wants to see skaven come back with new units but I just hate being disappointed with a lack of new units. It's gotten to the point where I just want to buy a newer army that actually gets new units.

I kind of want to get into kings of war because I can’t wait for my when fix anymore. I heard the models aren’t as good but the balance and prices are great which is honestly all I need to hear. As long as I can find a gaming group for kings of war I will totally make a switch at least for a bit.

Cyel wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Nah. Even at it's worst, 40K was always leaps and bounds ahead of some of the crap I had the misfortune to try of the years like Infinity or Warmahordes. And current 40K isn't the worst the game has been.

Seriously, what was crap about Warmahordes? I agree that it is a bit outdated and has its issues, but it is a million times smarter and more decision-based than Snakes&Ladders with bolters that is WH40K . The depth of this system and the value of player decisions in it is incredible.

The problem of WM&H is in my opinion that it is actually TOO deep. The learning curve and the barrier of entry is so high, that a lot of people who grew up on GW's "let's roll dice and see what happens" games just bounce off. It could benefit from heavy streamlining for more elegance and speed of resolution. Even if this happens at the expense of some depth it still would be a million times more intellectually engaging and rewarding than Warhammers.

WMH is a dead game for a lot of reasons in my opinion. It's really sad, because PP had EVERYTHING in reach, and just pissed it away. From my take, the game collapsed because they tried to be GW at a time when GW stopped being GW. Here is what I mean.

WMH mk2 was a pretty good game. Not balanced at all (no one who played against axis tier 3, Runes of War, or gaspy2 could honestly say so, and that doesn't touch the iceberg) but it did give a lot of great decision-making and choices in the game. Ranges, movement, buffs, and debuffs all made important differences in the game. But, PP released mk3, and mk3 was an absolute disaster on its launch. PP sold books, cards, and other material to update players to MK3, then after selling it to the independent retailers, made all of the information publicly and freely available 3 weeks later. They stuck stores with products they couldn't sell and didn't say a thing about it. I mean, this list goes on for a while. The rules were a very poor mishmash of copy/paste from MK2 to MK3, on a level that would make the people that bitch nonstop about GW raise an eyebrow. The entire faction of skorne was so poorly designed (literally with models that could not mechanically work in their faction) that they had to redesign it a few months after launch. This is literally just the tip of the iceberg.

130.00 models that had no detail, missing stock, insider dealing with a specific online retailer that somehow got to buy all of the inventory PP had on the new hot models, sticking retailers with taking a loss on books and cards, CID, dear god CID which was a public beta test for new models that ended up being a gigantic mess of falsified information to break the game, theme forces, getting rid of the Press Gang program, and absolute terrible PR from the developer of competitive play, and the design team, who literally would insult players, promises of content like fluff and IKRPG content that never came, I mean, the game just went downhill at a rate that I have never seen.

From what I have seen, the game is dead. PP has been in retraction from what I understand for a while and has gone down to about 17 employees where at one time they were over 100. The game is dead within 3 or 4 hours of my home, in any direction. I dont expect PP to stick around long, to be completely honest.

Seabass wrote:

Cyel wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Nah. Even at it's worst, 40K was always leaps and bounds ahead of some of the crap I had the misfortune to try of the years like Infinity or Warmahordes. And current 40K isn't the worst the game has been.

Seriously, what was crap about Warmahordes? I agree that it is a bit outdated and has its issues, but it is a million times smarter and more decision-based than Snakes&Ladders with bolters that is WH40K . The depth of this system and the value of player decisions in it is incredible.

The problem of WM&H is in my opinion that it is actually TOO deep. The learning curve and the barrier of entry is so high, that a lot of people who grew up on GW's "let's roll dice and see what happens" games just bounce off. It could benefit from heavy streamlining for more elegance and speed of resolution. Even if this happens at the expense of some depth it still would be a million times more intellectually engaging and rewarding than Warhammers.

WMH is a dead game for a lot of reasons in my opinion. It's really sad, because PP had EVERYTHING in reach, and just pissed it away. From my take, the game collapsed because they tried to be GW at a time when GW stopped being GW. Here is what I mean.

WMH mk2 was a pretty good game. Not balanced at all (no one who played against axis tier 3, Runes of War, or gaspy2 could honestly say so, and that doesn't touch the iceberg) but it did give a lot of great decision-making and choices in the game. Ranges, movement, buffs, and debuffs all made important differences in the game. But, PP released mk3, and mk3 was an absolute disaster on its launch. PP sold books, cards, and other material to update players to MK3, then after selling it to the independent retailers, made all of the information publicly and freely available 3 weeks later. They stuck stores with products they couldn't sell and didn't say a thing about it. I mean, this list goes on for a while. The rules were a very poor mishmash of copy/paste from MK2 to MK3, on a level that would make the people that bitch nonstop about GW raise an eyebrow. The entire faction of skorne was so poorly designed (literally with models that could not mechanically work in their faction) that they had to redesign it a few months after launch. This is literally just the tip of the iceberg.

130.00 models that had no detail, missing stock, insider dealing with a specific online retailer that somehow got to buy all of the inventory PP had on the new hot models, sticking retailers with taking a loss on books and cards, CID, dear god CID which was a public beta test for new models that ended up being a gigantic mess of falsified information to break the game, theme forces, getting rid of the Press Gang program, and absolute terrible PR from the developer of competitive play, and the design team, who literally would insult players, promises of content like fluff and IKRPG content that never came, I mean, the game just went downhill at a rate that I have never seen.

From what I have seen, the game is dead. PP has been in retraction from what I understand for a while and has gone down to about 17 employees where at one time they were over 100. The game is dead within 3 or 4 hours of my home, in any direction. I dont expect PP to stick around long, to be completely honest.

There's a difference between mismanagement and a bad game. I agree there was a lot wrong with Mk3 but it was still a good game (at least in its first year, if you didn't play Skorne). Warmahordes is dead because of PP, not because the game itself is bad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I'm not sure what the state of 40k is right now, but as soon as I've finished my 3 week correspondence course "How to make sense of the multi-layered rules in the new Adetpus Mechanicus Codex", I'll let you know.

It just struck me that maybe bloated rules are an effort to kill soup armies. If you need to remember dozens of rules that constantly change from turn to turn in one army no one is going to do it over two.

 Sim-Life wrote:

Seabass wrote:

Cyel wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Nah. Even at it's worst, 40K was always leaps and bounds ahead of some of the crap I had the misfortune to try of the years like Infinity or Warmahordes. And current 40K isn't the worst the game has been.

Seriously, what was crap about Warmahordes? I agree that it is a bit outdated and has its issues, but it is a million times smarter and more decision-based than Snakes&Ladders with bolters that is WH40K . The depth of this system and the value of player decisions in it is incredible.

The problem of WM&H is in my opinion that it is actually TOO deep. The learning curve and the barrier of entry is so high, that a lot of people who grew up on GW's "let's roll dice and see what happens" games just bounce off. It could benefit from heavy streamlining for more elegance and speed of resolution. Even if this happens at the expense of some depth it still would be a million times more intellectually engaging and rewarding than Warhammers.

WMH is a dead game for a lot of reasons in my opinion. It's really sad, because PP had EVERYTHING in reach, and just pissed it away. From my take, the game collapsed because they tried to be GW at a time when GW stopped being GW. Here is what I mean.

WMH mk2 was a pretty good game. Not balanced at all (no one who played against axis tier 3, Runes of War, or gaspy2 could honestly say so, and that doesn't touch the iceberg) but it did give a lot of great decision-making and choices in the game. Ranges, movement, buffs, and debuffs all made important differences in the game. But, PP released mk3, and mk3 was an absolute disaster on its launch. PP sold books, cards, and other material to update players to MK3, then after selling it to the independent retailers, made all of the information publicly and freely available 3 weeks later. They stuck stores with products they couldn't sell and didn't say a thing about it. I mean, this list goes on for a while. The rules were a very poor mishmash of copy/paste from MK2 to MK3, on a level that would make the people that bitch nonstop about GW raise an eyebrow. The entire faction of skorne was so poorly designed (literally with models that could not mechanically work in their faction) that they had to redesign it a few months after launch. This is literally just the tip of the iceberg.

130.00 models that had no detail, missing stock, insider dealing with a specific online retailer that somehow got to buy all of the inventory PP had on the new hot models, sticking retailers with taking a loss on books and cards, CID, dear god CID which was a public beta test for new models that ended up being a gigantic mess of falsified information to break the game, theme forces, getting rid of the Press Gang program, and absolute terrible PR from the developer of competitive play, and the design team, who literally would insult players, promises of content like fluff and IKRPG content that never came, I mean, the game just went downhill at a rate that I have never seen.

From what I have seen, the game is dead. PP has been in retraction from what I understand for a while and has gone down to about 17 employees where at one time they were over 100. The game is dead within 3 or 4 hours of my home, in any direction. I dont expect PP to stick around long, to be completely honest.

There's a difference between mismanagement and a bad game. I agree there was a lot wrong with Mk3 but it was still a good game (at least in its first year, if you didn't play Skorne). Warmahordes is dead because of PP, not because the game itself is bad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I'm not sure what the state of 40k is right now, but as soon as I've finished my 3 week correspondence course "How to make sense of the multi-layered rules in the new Adetpus Mechanicus Codex", I'll let you know.

It just struck me that maybe bloated rules are an effort to kill soup armies. If you need to remember dozens of rules that constantly change from turn to turn in one army no one is going to do it over two.

The fastest way to kill soup would be to disallow Allies except in narrative campaigns.

PenitentJake wrote:

@vipoid: Archons can still take combat drugs and soul traps... You just have to stop playing matched to do it. Both are Crusade Requisitions.

Oh joy of all joys. So if I agree to play an entirely different mode of play, which doesn't suit me at all, I might be allowed a couple of wargear items back? Gee, thanks.

Also, I feel obliged to point out that Soul Trap used to give a bonus immediately, upon killing a Monster or Character.

Now I have to kill five characters (monsters don't even count anymore for some reason) in order to get anything out of it. And this on a character who is supposed to be a melee character and yet has one of the worst melee profiles in the entire game.

Sorry if I'm not thrilled at the prospect.

PenitentJake wrote:
And for the record, I liked Succubi on reaver bikes and skyboards because Succubi would learn to use those things in the arena. But I never thought Archons should have access without a story to back it up.

"I don't like these options, therefore no one else should be allowed to like or use them either."

What a great philosophy.

PenitentJake wrote:

Crusade is also the cure for boring weapons; slap an upgrade on any weapon- there are lots to choose from.

It never ceases to amaze me how many hoops people will jump through to defend GW's awful game design.

'Hey, if you play an entirely different type of game, you get access to upgrades that make your weapons less-bad and less boring!'

Alas, it seems the question of why the Archon's weapons needed to be bad and boring in the first place will forever remain a mystery.

PenitentJake wrote:

Here's an experiment for you; I can't try it right now because I'm away from my books for a while. But pick your favourite edition, and build your favourite Archon. Then do the same in 9th. Then fight them.

How?

Which rules are we using? What does WS7 hit WS2+ on? Does WS2+ hit WS7 on 2s or on 5s? Does I7 strike before, after, or at the same time as a model with no initiative score? Does a model with no initiative score even get to fight? If a 5th edition Archon wounds a 9th edition Archon with a Blaster or Blast Pistol, does it suffer Instant Death?

PenitentJake wrote:

I suspect what you'll find is that the 9th guy wins- because all your cool gear doesn't stack- take every item in the list if you want but how many can you use at a time?

Whereas: my Master status stacks with my relic, which stacks with my WL Trait, which stacks with my strats, which stack with my Kabal trait- I won't include auras, because that brings in extra models.

Bringing up artefacts and warlord traits is exactly the point - an Archon shouldn't need to take a specific relic just to obtain a weapon that's actually functional.

To illustrate what I mean, let's run a 5th edition Archon and a 9th edition Archon against the Marines of the day:
- The 5th edition Archon with an Agoniser kills 1.67 Marines on average.
- The 9th edition Archon with an Agoniser does 1.4 wounds to a single Marine.
(And in case you're wondering, no, the 9th edition Archon does not have a single non-relic weapon that will bring that score up to killing even a single Marine on average)

If you want another example, let's see how their anti-character weapons hold up:
- The 5th edition Archon with a Huskblade inflicts 0.55 wounds on a SM Captain. But since the weapon has Instant Death, that's a 55% chance to kill the Captain outright.
- The 9th edition Archon inflicts ~1.4 wounds on the SM Captain. Which is almost twice the above, but with no Instant Death and with Captains having 66% more wounds, you're looking at 3-4 turns before the Archon actually kills him (assuming said Archon is even still alive).

Yes, you can probably take a relic and do better - but that's precisely my point. You're having to take a relic - something that should be about personalising a character - just to retain functionality at the most basic purpose of an Archon.

PenitentJake wrote:

And even if you do come out on top, we'll need to have the conversation again after I gain all 4 of my battle honours- because they stack too.

Even ignoring all the problems of trying to fight characters from different editions with different game mechanics, why on earth would I make one of the Archons a Crusade archon? You said to pick my favourite Archon in 9th - not your favourite Archon, using a game system that doesn't interest me.

PenitentJake wrote:

I get it- I know that equipment is something easily relatable and easy to model. But equipment is usually either/or; if there are 10 pieces of equipment you can take, you've got 10 options. If you've got 5 strats, 6 WL traits, 3 relics and 2 upgrades, you've got 180 combinations.

Why does combinations count for one but not for the other?

Also, how many of those combinations are actually functional? Because I foresee you ending up with a lot of combination of Archon that don't actually do anything, as you haven't given them the one good relic weapon and they have no other role in an army besides melee.

For example, I quite liked the idea of a ranged Archon using a Blaster or the Poison Tongue relic. However, Blasters have been scoured from the codex and the Poison Tongue relic is about as effective as the Archon throwing his own dung at opponents. What's more, by taking that Relic, I lose access to the only good melee weapon DE get (which is also a relic). So, as demonstrated above, I'm stuck with one of 4 basic weapons - not a single one of which can kill a Marine on average. At least an 8th edition Archon with the same build actually had a half-decent melee weapon to fall back on.

But apparently I'm supposed to celebrate our amazing number of options and ignore the fact that those 180 combinations amount to 1 combination that's actually functional and 179 trap options.

 the_scotsman wrote:

 BertBert wrote:
but people pooled 3D scans of their existing miniatures online.

Where did they do that, my good friend my buddy my old pal?

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2087805624

@vipoid Thanks for taking the time for the detailed response.

You're right, comparing between editions is too difficult to serve as a good experiment- my bad.

Also, didn't know your aversion to Crusade was as strong as it is. From your point of view, I can see how it may look like hoop jumping to defend GW, but Crusade is my preferred game, so to me, playing matched would be like hoop jumping, only it would make my army WAY less "My dudes"- reverse hoop jumping so to speak.

You're also right about equipment combos providing more options than I gave them credit- I didn't know how to hit the math to calculate the possible combinations- especially since I won't have access to my dexes for another 2-4 days. Razor flails in the hands of a Cult of Strife Succubus just about broke the Internet- imagine what they'd say about instant death!

Anyway, you've articulated your points pretty clearly, so I'll stop trying so hard to change your mind- I do get where you're coming from; I too would like some of those options back- I'd like a ranged Archon too- mine is likely to end up as a toxin crafter with a Court full of Lhameans, a few toxin distillery territories and some poison upgrades- he'll be a ranged bad@55 eventually, he's just going to have to work for it.

As for the "I don't like it" part of the jetbikes and Skyboards for non-Wych HQs: if GW gave us those rules back for Archons, even though I personally wouldn't like them, I wouldn't advocate for removing them- I just wouldn't use them myself.

The situation we are in though, is one where we don't have the option. I'm just explaining that from my POV I think it makes fluff sense to keep Jetbikes and Skyboards out of the hands of Archons and Haemonculi, who would would spend much of their time outside the arenas where those particular pieces of gear are far more prevalent.

My way of dealing with problems is almost always additive, rather than subtractive; rather than calling for jetbikes and skyboards to be banned for Archons and Haemonculi, I'd be more likely to suggest adding a Gladitorial Training requisition to the Crusade rules that explained why someone who should have trained as a tactician or surgeon instead spent time learning how to stunt drive.

Anyway- I won't bug you again; it's clear our points of view are irreconcilable, and that's okay. Sorry to be as much of a pain in the @55 as I have been :-)

For the first time in a long while I am rather hopeful. GW seems to be moving in a more customer oriented direction. Responding to criticism and errors in the game markedly faster than in previous editions. GW seems to have realized they overloaded the market with new Marine kits and has moved towards a more balanced approach, Orkz getting new kits, Necrons, SOB, Mech. Its honestly a golden age in comparison to 5-7th.