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.

Negative - obvious codex power creep
- too many buffs/extra rules/offensive stratagems

game needs balance and defensive strats only

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I think a lot of it comes down to the problems because of Corona. They simply should not have started 9th edition when they didn't have the proper production capacities. The Indomitus Set was already a bad start, the App is still a mess and the Codizes we see are actually nice but with how slowly they are coming out we still can't see the whole picture. Their FAQ system seems to have broken down completely, the points decisions are still strange and CA has become totally useless outside of the tournament scene. I really hope GW tries to solve these problems when Corona is over and not force 10th edition on us in 2 years when half the factions got their 9th edition Codex. The foundations of 9th are actually good, better than in 8th and far better than in 6th or 7th which I don't miss one bit. GW just has to get their things together again.

I think Corona, and its result of the tournament scene practically shutting down, has really shown that GW doesn't have a clue of what happens outside their office. Without the usual big tournaments supplying GW with data to balance off of they are just throwing some darts at a board.

Just a reminder to everyone that AoS is happy to accept refugees!

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Just a reminder to everyone that AoS is happy to accept refugees!

"i'm sure this other lifestyle game by the same company won't go down the same route!"

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Just a reminder to everyone that AoS is happy to accept refugees!

I'm torn. Aos seems to have better pricing and design, but I don't care for any faction (at least any that are actually supported). I love bonesplitterz but they have 2 kits that aren't heros. Now Gruel-Boyz came along and have more kits than ironjawz and bonesplitterz put together.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Just a reminder to everyone that AoS is happy to accept refugees!

Warpath Firefight is currently in open Beta if you would stay in SciFi universe

Compared to where 40k was when I quit at the end of 7th? Positive. Sure, there's power creep and buff-overload, but it's a far better state than things were then, so it's improving at least.

 the_scotsman wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Just a reminder to everyone that AoS is happy to accept refugees!

"i'm sure this other lifestyle game by the same company won't go down the same route!"

I believe these are the halcyon days for AOS and they will most likely face the same fate as 40k sooner or later...

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Just a reminder to everyone that AoS is happy to accept refugees!

Give me a shout when Vampire Lords get actual options again. Or when they stop requiring a mount glued to their buttocks to be remotely effective.

Or when Dark Elves get an actual release, rather than a footnote in The Big Book of Armies We Can't Be Arsed Supporting Anymore.




(All that said, I do maintain that Command Abilities are precisely what Stratagems *should* have been.)

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Just a reminder to everyone that AoS is happy to accept refugees!

Thats like saying "you should kick heroin and try this meth".

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Just a reminder to everyone that AoS is happy to accept refugees!

Just a friendly reminder to everyone that you can play an older edition or games from other companies.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Just a reminder to everyone that AoS is happy to accept refugees!

The models look amazing and some of the factions are really nice but the fact that GW seems to double down on the Double Turn for yet another edition means you won't find me anywhere near an AoS game anytime soon.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Just a reminder to everyone that AoS is happy to accept refugees!

Not convinced that AoS is actually doing that much better. Tho will be interesting to see what 3e edition bring.

But having watched a few tournament streams I think the single biggest turnoff is the amount of games I see decided by someone getting a double turn.
A single dice roll in turn 2 or 3 should not decide the outcome of the game on a consistent basis.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Just a reminder to everyone that AoS is happy to accept refugees!

...So long as the things that are driving you away from 40k aren't awful faction balance, nonexistent support for older minis, a wildly inconsistent release schedule, the Space Marines getting hugely more content than anyone else, scale creep, big centerpiece HQ models, the prices, or the complete lack of customizability, anyway.

 the_scotsman wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Just a reminder to everyone that AoS is happy to accept refugees!

"i'm sure this other lifestyle game by the same company won't go down the same route!"

When you play GW you learn to capitalize on the high points and slide around the low ones. That can mean shifting to another play type, a different warhammer, or a different company entirely. The thing is, GW does not remain popular because their games make everyone miserable. While their low points tend to be lower, their high points tend to be higher, and when Warhammer is going well it REALLY goes well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Just a reminder to everyone that AoS is happy to accept refugees!

...So long as the things that are driving you away from 40k aren't awful faction balance, nonexistent support for older minis, a wildly inconsistent release schedule, the Space Marines getting hugely more content than anyone else, scale creep, big centerpiece HQ models, the prices, or the complete lack of customizability, anyway.

No one is saying those problems don't exist (well bar the Marine comparison, obviously) but it is not binary where the problems exist at a certain level or do not and never in between. I know, I know, most individuals lose their already limited ability to process nuance when they go online but I can hope to reach the minority who retain it

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Just a reminder to everyone that AoS is happy to accept refugees!

"i'm sure this other lifestyle game by the same company won't go down the same route!"

When you play GW you learn to capitalize on the high points and slide around the low ones. That can mean shifting to another play type, a different warhammer, or a different company entirely. The thing is, GW does not remain popular because their games make everyone miserable. While their low points tend to be lower, their high points tend to be higher, and when Warhammer is going well it REALLY goes well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Just a reminder to everyone that AoS is happy to accept refugees!

...So long as the things that are driving you away from 40k aren't awful faction balance, nonexistent support for older minis, a wildly inconsistent release schedule, the Space Marines getting hugely more content than anyone else, scale creep, big centerpiece HQ models, the prices, or the complete lack of customizability, anyway.

No one is saying those problems don't exist (well bar the Marine comparison, obviously) but it is not binary where the problems exist at a certain level or do not and never in between. I know, I know, most individuals lose their already limited ability to process nuance when they go online but I can hope to reach the minority who retain it

Warhammer survives largely on inertia. There are more warhammer players, therefor its easier to find games of warhammer and hard to start up another game.

Doesn't matter how good the competition is when those who want to switch over can't find opponents to play with.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Just a reminder to everyone that AoS is happy to accept refugees!

...So long as the things that are driving you away from 40k aren't awful faction balance, nonexistent support for older minis, a wildly inconsistent release schedule, the Space Marines getting hugely more content than anyone else, scale creep, big centerpiece HQ models, the prices, or the complete lack of customizability, anyway.

No one is saying those problems don't exist (well bar the Marine comparison, obviously) but it is not binary where the problems exist at a certain level or do not and never in between. I know, I know, most individuals lose their already limited ability to process nuance when they go online but I can hope to reach the minority who retain it

What, the Stormcast don't have as much content as the rest of the game put together?

 Just Tony wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Just a reminder to everyone that AoS is happy to accept refugees!

Just a friendly reminder to everyone that you can play an older edition or games from other companies.

May I recommend Grimdark Future if you want to play alternating-activation beer-and-pretzels 40K using your - or anyone else's - existing minis, or Infinity if you want a mind-boggling tactical challenge with actual depth instead of just the illusion of it?

 CEO Kasen wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Just a reminder to everyone that AoS is happy to accept refugees!

Just a friendly reminder to everyone that you can play an older edition or games from other companies.

May I recommend Grimdark Future if you want to play alternating-activation beer-and-pretzels 40K using your - or anyone else's - existing minis, or Infinity if you want a mind-boggling tactical challenge with actual depth instead of just the illusion of it?

In all my time of playing Infinity, I have neither seen nor heard of any actual depth beyond what 40K offers. I've heard N4 has changed crits, but it's really hard to say a game has depth when you can literally do everything right (needing 18 to hit, enemy needs 2s) and 2 of your opponent's 3 ARO shots crit, cancelling your shots and removing any chance of your 11 ARM mattering. Such tactical nuance! Mind-boggling!
Or 2 Jotums in cover being killed by a ariadnan line troops' shotgun in 6 of their own (to be absolutely clear, the Jotums') orders.

At least when a grot kills a Knight in 40k it's in the grots' own turn.

edit: The entirety of Infinity's tactical depth for the years I played it was "fireteam HMG go brrr" and "skirmisher with template go brrr". You'd also get the special treat of "MSV + smoke go brrr" almost every game. Which absolutely sucked as a TAG/HI player.

Rihgu wrote:
...it's really hard to say a game has depth when you can literally do everything right (needing 18 to hit, enemy needs 2s) and 2 of your opponent's 3 ARO shots crit, cancelling your shots and removing any chance of your 11 ARM mattering. Such tactical nuance! Mind-boggling!...

Which is a criticism that applies to any game that includes any RNG. Games of Sigmar turn on the double-turn roll. Games of 40k can easily be won or lost on one charge roll. I can get land-screwed in MTG and have no chance to play. Does the existence of RNG remove any chance of tactical nuance to you?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rihgu wrote:
...edit: The entirety of Infinity's tactical depth for the years I played it was "fireteam HMG go brrr" and "skirmisher with template go brrr". You'd also get the special treat of "MSV + smoke go brrr" almost every game. Which absolutely sucked as a TAG/HI player.

If you stand in front of the fireteam HMG and try to face-to-face it, sure. If you haven't set up to counter the skirmisher, sure. If you have no MSVs of your own, sure. Infinity is very easy to play badly and get screwed because you encountered a tactic you weren't prepared for, because unlike almost any other wargame you can't spam one answer to all problems and brute-force your way through bad matchups.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Rihgu wrote:
...it's really hard to say a game has depth when you can literally do everything right (needing 18 to hit, enemy needs 2s) and 2 of your opponent's 3 ARO shots crit, cancelling your shots and removing any chance of your 11 ARM mattering. Such tactical nuance! Mind-boggling!...

Which is a criticism that applies to any game that includes any RNG. Games of Sigmar turn on the double-turn roll. Games of 40k can easily be won or lost on one charge roll. I can get land-screwed in MTG and have no chance to play. Does the existence of RNG remove any chance of tactical nuance to you?

No. Infinity would be fairly close to it if the RNG didn't swing so wildly. A heavy infantry with better skill, +3 range band, in cover with camo shooting at an exposed target with worse skill and out of their range bandand no notable defenses except maybe some ARM turning into the heavy infantry dying because of the dice is just an incredible affront to the nature of anything resembling tactics. I can set up fairly close to *the optimal situation* according to the game mechanics barring the very rare situations where you can just completely negate your opponent's chance to react and it can still be the absolute worst outcome for me? Okay, sure, tactical depth. Take away the existence of crits, make it so in that situation I roll 3 1s and they roll a 2 and my attack is stopped, that's fine. Let me roll my armor saves, in cover with TAG or HI armor, I should be fine. They roll a 2 and my 17 is negated, and I take damage I can't negate? No, that's not tactical depth, that's just rolling dice. That's equally as bad as the double turn mechanic in AoS in my eyes. There's other things about N3 beyond just crits, but that's the worst offender. Again, I've heard N4 has toned down crits (I don't know to what extent) but haven't tried it since N4 came out and sold all of my stuff anyways.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rihgu wrote:
...edit: The entirety of Infinity's tactical depth for the years I played it was "fireteam HMG go brrr" and "skirmisher with template go brrr". You'd also get the special treat of "MSV + smoke go brrr" almost every game. Which absolutely sucked as a TAG/HI player.

If you stand in front of the fireteam HMG and try to face-to-face it, sure. If you haven't set up to counter the skirmisher, sure. If you have no MSVs of your own, sure. Infinity is very easy to play badly and get screwed because you encountered a tactic you weren't prepared for, because unlike almost any other wargame you can't spam one answer to all problems and brute-force your way through bad matchups.

Yes, I'm doing the worst possible things at all times. That was my problem! I just kept trying to face-to-face fireteams! For years! I just kept encountering tactics I wasn't prepared for.
It's very bad faith to imply that I somehow, in years of playing, just kept FtFing fireteams and never set up to counter skirmishers, and just kept playing badly and getting surprised.
The entire time I was playing, list-building threads and Interplanetario lists were fairly cookie cutter. You need your fireteam, you need your warbands, you need 1 of each specialist, and if you're not Onyx or PanO, your smoke + MSV. Also, you need to hit 16-18 orders (this I know has been cut down in N4, too). Also, don't EVER bring TAGs. Even during the TAG-themed season where to score max points you needed to bring TAGs!

Anyways, to end on a positive note, despite all my misgivings above, I will say that those unhappy with the state of 40K and looking for a game which
1) has focus on smaller scale engagements
2) is well supported competitively

I will recommend Infinity. If you're looking for tactical nuance or depth, I can't recommend it. I will admit that it perhaps has more than 40K, but I won't say it's that much deeper. On table choices (true choices, that is. You have nearly infinite bad choices, of course) are fairly limited and there's a huge focus on list-building and bringing a tool box.

If you're looking to continue to use your 40K minis and play in that universe, I also cannot recommend Infinity.

 Manchild 1984 wrote:
Negative - obvious codex power creep
- too many buffs/extra rules/offensive stratagems

game needs balance and defensive strats only

Just want to echo this, these are the two big problems with the same right now IMO. Base rules system is fine, but the codex creep is depressing and terrible for the game, and the stupid amount of rules you have to memorize creates the illusion of depth when it isn't actually there, while also promoting gotcha moments for those without the time to learn the infinite subtle variations on the same thing which can cost you games if you misunderstand them even slightly.

They've traded actual depth for fake depth caused by bloat.

Like so many things that GW does, their ideals are fantastic, but the execution of said ideas leaves so much to be desired.

Stratagems are a fantastic example of that: an abstracted and limited strategic resource available to each player that they can expend for additional strategic assets.

The problem comes with the actual strats themselves, using them for things like fighting twice, or for the use of equipment during games (like smoke launchers).

There are too many of them, and some of them are too specific or weirdly arbitrary in their application (like Transhuman only affecting Primaris). Worse, some of them exist simply to make units viable, such as so many of the new strats from the PA books - they were clearly a way of patching units without rewriting their data sheets (come to think of it, the entire PA series was about patching 40K before 9th).

The equipment ones are the worst though, as they're the ones that make the lease sense. All my vehicles have smoke launchers, so why do I need to expend a strategic resource to use them? And why am I limited to one per turn?

"Sorry Sergeant Dolphinius, we can't use our smoke launchers at the moment as Rhino 237-A is using theirs! Guess we just have to die!"

If Smoke Launchers was a strat used prior to the game ie. spend 3 CP and all <Chapter> Vehicles gain "Smoke Launchers", then that would make more sense to me.

I agree that stratagems are cool in concept, and I think there are a decent number that really improve the game. The humble command point reroll comes to mind.

But...

 Ordana wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I think a lot of it comes down to the problems because of Corona. They simply should not have started 9th edition when they didn't have the proper production capacities. The Indomitus Set was already a bad start, the App is still a mess and the Codizes we see are actually nice but with how slowly they are coming out we still can't see the whole picture. Their FAQ system seems to have broken down completely, the points decisions are still strange and CA has become totally useless outside of the tournament scene. I really hope GW tries to solve these problems when Corona is over and not force 10th edition on us in 2 years when half the factions got their 9th edition Codex. The foundations of 9th are actually good, better than in 8th and far better than in 6th or 7th which I don't miss one bit. GW just has to get their things together again.

I think Corona, and its result of the tournament scene practically shutting down, has really shown that GW doesn't have a clue of what happens outside their office. Without the usual big tournaments supplying GW with data to balance off of they are just throwing some darts at a board.

So basically they are doing what GW usually does ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Just a reminder to everyone that AoS is happy to accept refugees!

I appreciate the sentiment in this statement. However, it gives me cold comfort to leave this system, to join that system, which only exists because they screwed up royal and then burned to the ground the system before it. Doesn't leave me with a whole lot of confidence.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Just a reminder to everyone that AoS is happy to accept refugees!

Erm...no?

If your friend says that he no longer enjoys Monopoly, that he realised that it is outdated, player decisions are irrelevant, there's too much randomness and the gameplay is tedious is boring, you don't tell them that there may be a good alternative in Monopoly:Star Wars or (more aptly) Monopoly: Junior.

No. You introduce them to Concordia, Power Grid, Agricola, Puerto Rico and then you show them Brass, Barrage, Food Chain Magnate and 18XXs.

Finally you both rejoice how your friend's taste in economic boardgames has matured.

I was quite excited for strategems at the start of 8th. They were a little extra spice, nudging a roll with a reroll was great, for example.
But hoh boy has it spiralled out of control since those times.

It seems GW as a whole has learnt from that, games that introduced 'strategems' later did so on a far more limited basis.
They're also dialling back the strats in 9th, but I think they're reluctant to tone stuff down too much so it's just a baby step.

Part of 40k's problem is that the focus is on selling the churn of new rules rather making quality rules.
It's large enough the game sells on sheer mass alone.
That's why everything new is the bestest and coolest thing ever.
GW knows people want to buy cool rules, they don't want to pay for a book that cuts back on cool rules, even if people would be overall better for it.
It's like eating that tub of icecream, sure I need to lose weight but that's a distant concern in the grand scheme of things.

I feel the same way about DnD, a constant churn of newer, cooler, rules is how you make money off of an industry giant.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Just a reminder to everyone that AoS is happy to accept refugees!

Thats like saying "you should kick heroin and try this meth".

I like to call my own game 'Warhammer Methadone'

40k is in a much better state than AOS anyway, regardless of any problems 9th has.

Even with the power differential between codexes, 9th still feels like it has a cohesive vision behind it. The last 4 battletomes for AOS have felt like they've been designed for 4 different game systems. And the less said about the shoddy design work and proofreading of some of the new units in BR Kragnos the better.

People undoubtedly feel the same about certain interactions things in 40k - but I feel the commitment required to play AoS is far too great to get double-turned and lose. In 40k most of the "gotchas" are down to inexperience.

Presumably there are ways to mitigate someone going twice in succession, but I'm unclear what they are. Especially when the game discourages you from being extremely cagey (or at least it did, not sure what current missions look like.)