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.
ClockworkZion wrote: That's hardly more bloated than other armies, much less past editions.
That's flat out wrong.
They multiple, multiple layers of rules in 9th is awful. I still say that 7th Ed formations were worse (anything that gave your army 400-600 points of "free stuff" for no drawback is obviously worse), but the endless bloat in 9th is just insane now.
I mean, the AdMech book alone just makes me cringe with the sheer amount of needless nonsense in there.
Is it fluffy, engaging, and appropriate to the faction?
Would CSM players like marks to do something again?
Would a challenge system for CSM fit the faction?
A boons table people can use?
Should Raptors be 'scary'? Should Bezerkers bear greater distinction from Chosen beyond just extra strength?
Should Abaddon interact with the army beyond murdering stuff?
Does it make sense to have a model that can pray to the gods?
Psychic powers?
Daemon weapons?
Icons?
ClockworkZion wrote: All I'm seeing is a circljerk about how much we want to pretend GW is doing more than the used to do and pretending it's only alright for Marines to have set the bar and all others being able to be on the same level as them.
I'll take your word for it that that is all you are seeing, but it isn't anybody else's fault that you're misreading what other people are writing. Literally nobody here has said that, or even anything like it. People are complaining about the bloat across the whole game, marines included. Nobody is saying "I'm so mad ad mech have the same rules bloat that marines do!"
It's hard to have a serious conversation with someone who insists on arguing with a straw man.
Maybe I am misunderstanding his point, but quite honestly this stuff was already in the game the only difference is how it's expressed. The only new thing you have in 8th and 9th you didn't have before were stratagems and you pay CP for those. All this crying about how bloated the rules are now compared to before is complete nonsense when that is the ONLY real addition to 8th and we also saw rules REMOVED going from 7th to 8th and aura abilities in 9th being tightened up so they're less abusive.
The "bloat" being complained about is merely just the fact people have a toolbox that they can make on the fly tactical decisions with instead of committing their entire army plan at list creation. Oh no, people might be able to play against bad match ups because they have stratagems and secondary options that allow them to participate in the game instead of watching their opponent rack up a massive lead and then table them at the end of turn 3 when they've maxed their score out.
All I'm seeing with this "bloat" argument is more of the "old is good, new is bad" mindset that seems to crop up and then wildly misrepresent past editions in order to create a narrative that those old editions where somehow "more tactical" or "less bloated" or otherwise "better" than what is clearly been the most popular editions of 40k since Rogue Trader. Is it perfect? No. Are the books a lot stronger than the books of last edition due to more options for secondaries, updated statlines and weapon profiles, as well as more finely tuned stratagems? Yes. Is the game "bloated" just because you can't predict your entire opponent's playstyle solely on the army list they brought and have to actively think about what they're doing and how to respond to them at the table? Definitely not.
And the arguement that points don't matter, let's run through something really quick by taking a unit of Repentia and give them every. single. buff. they can take and I'll even be generous and keep it as cheap as possible totaling it all under the 2021 CA points for fairness since it all changes in a week anyways (buffs will be in parenthesis with explanations for unique ones explained after the name of the rule):
4 Repentia (Acts of Faith, Sacred Rites, Shield of Faith, Zealot, Solace in Anguish (5+ FnP), Order of the Bloody Rose (Improve melee weapon AP by 1, +1 attack during first round of combat))
Repentia Superior (Drive Onwards (re-roll advance/charge rolls and re-roll wound rolls of 1 for Repentia within 6")
Missionary (Sacred Hymns (+1 attack within 6"))
Triumph of Saint Katherine (The Fiery Heart (auto pass morale within 6"), Petals of the Bloody Rose (+1 to hit within 6"), Icon of the Valorous Heart (perform a bonus act of faith on a unit within 6" even if they did an act of faith already), Simulacrum of the Argent Shroud (can add or subtract 1 when a unit within 6" performs an act of faith))
Celestine (Saintly Blessings (unit within 6" improves Shield of Faith save by +1 to a max of 4++)
Rhino (to carry the Repentia, Repentia Superior, Missionary safely)
Grand Total Investment: 671 points to buff 4 models. The more models you want to buff, the more those points go up and the more Rhinos you need to get them into position safely since we're talking about units with a 5++ and 5+++ if they're within 6" of Celestine which means they're incredibly squishy.
Acts of Faith can't be used to long bomb the Repentia on a charge either as all of the buffs coming from other units require the unit to stay within 6" which means either making short charges with the 4 models to keep the cost down, or taking 10 models so you can make longer charges but not need to push the buff pieces forward.
This is why I said that people really should sit down and tally up what they're talking about. Sure you can add four more units to the Repentia to make them this week's episode of "Will it Blend?" but it's not realistic, it's unwieldly and two of the pieces can't even hide in the Rhino to benefit from the extra protection.
Well what about stratagems then? Which ones can Repentia realistically use for buffs?
Final Redemption (1CP) 4+ to do 1 Mortal Wound per Repentia model killed in the unit.
Desperate for Redemption (3 CP) Allows Repentia within 1" of an enemy unit fight as if it were the fight phase
Holy Rage (1 CP) can charge if advanced this turn
Tear Them Down (1 CP) +1 to the wound roll
So for all that you'd spend 6 CP to buff one unit. Assuming you start with 12 CP that means you're spending half of your resources to buff one unit one time. Not a great investment in points unless you REALLY need something dead.
So basically this is why I don't buy the bloat complaint. The "omg look how many buffs a unit can get" is hampered by aura distances and points, and stratagem buffs are limited by your CP pool. In past editions you wouldn't have to worry about aura positions as you'd be able to just slap the characters into the units and always have them on, but now it matters and it prevents you from just adding everything under the sun to try and make a single unit death ball.
ClockworkZion wrote: Marines set the bar, others meeting that bar should not be treated as being excessive.
Completely not the point I was making.
They're all excessive. I don't care who came first, or that others should match the first. None of them should be at that multi-layered level of endless piled on rules.
ClockworkZion wrote: All I'm seeing is a circljerk about how much we want to pretend GW is doing more than the used to do and pretending it's only alright for Marines to have set the bar and all others being able to be on the same level as them.
I never said anything of the sort. Get the straw out of your face.
Daedalus81 wrote: Would CSM players like marks to do something again? Would a challenge system for CSM fit the faction? A boons table people can use? Should Raptors be 'scary'? Should Bezerkers bear greater distinction from Chosen beyond just extra strength? Should Abaddon interact with the army beyond murdering stuff? Does it make sense to have a model that can pray to the gods? Psychic powers? Daemon weapons? Icons?
We had that in the past, and it was never anything like the bloat of 9th Ed.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/04 02:01:28
yeah going over some 5th, 6th, and 7th rule books its insane the amount of rules some units can get.
Example when you combine all the possible rules (and I have been able to do this before as its not that hard when a few of the auras are +3", another aura is a 12" fly unit) Repentia can get;
Run and charge
Re-roll runs and charge
Miracle dice (so don't need re-roll charges even lol)
Gain +1 to hits
Gain +1 atks Gain +1 to str Gain +1 to wounds
re-roll all hits
re-roll wounds of 1
bonus ap exploding hits
exploding MW's on death
Gain MD on death and when they kill
Gain + to their invuls
Has a 5+++
ClockworkZion wrote: That's hardly more bloated than other armies, much less past editions.
That's flat out wrong.
They multiple, multiple layers of rules in 9th is awful. I still say that 7th Ed formations were worse (anything that gave your army 400-600 points of "free stuff" for no drawback is obviously worse), but the endless bloat in 9th is just insane now.
I mean, the AdMech book alone just makes me cringe with the sheer amount of needless nonsense in there.
Is it fluffy, engaging, and appropriate to the faction?
Would CSM players like marks to do something again?
Would a challenge system for CSM fit the faction?
A boons table people can use?
Should Raptors be 'scary'? Should Bezerkers bear greater distinction from Chosen beyond just extra strength?
Should Abaddon interact with the army beyond murdering stuff?
Does it make sense to have a model that can pray to the gods?
Psychic powers?
Daemon weapons?
Icons?
Most of that stuff is a "yes", but Challenges and the Boon Table can both go burn somewhere. Always hated those. And if we get meaningful marks back, I want Veteran Abilities that you can max out if you DON'T take a mark. Like in 3.5. That way Night Lords can be the godless veterans they're supposed to be again.
H.B.M.C. wrote: We had that in the past, and it was never anything like the bloat of 9th Ed
Well, we never really had warlord traits ( way back ). Should those go away?
The important questions to me are:
1) Do these things feel like Warhammer
2) Can GW make the book reasonably balanced
All the things we're talking about are Warhammer at its core. This is what 40K has wanted to be for ages.
Is it difficult to manage? You bet. But it is also fun. If they can continue to make the changes/adjustments they've made recently then they appear to be more competent than they've ever been in the past.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/04 02:28:07
ClockworkZion wrote: ...Are we really pretending we couldn't stack rules onto single units like a Jenga tower of Negative Play Experiances? Because that is complete BS if we are...
No. We're pretending that the Jenga tower of Negative Play Experiences has somehow improved in 8th/9th, when it's at least as complex as the Jenga tower of Negative Play Experiences that was 7th, and frequently worse.
From my perspective the difference here is that one is baked into the fundamental game design, whereas in 7th edition formations, psychic shenanigans, and death stars could be much more easily mitigated by a community.
All of those death stars were easy to spot net lists and were NEVER taken to any of the campaigns i was in; formations were banned, and Invisibility was modified.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/04 02:44:58
Saying "all 8th and 9th have that is new is strats," even if it were accurate - which it isn't - really isn't a very good argument. Having to be aware of and take into account 20ish stratagems for every faction in the game adds a tremendous amount of rules bloat to the game - literally hundreds of new rules you have to remember, many of which can lose you the game if you are not aware of even a single time.
I'm not saying that makes strats terrible or that I'd do away with them completely (though I'd certainly remove the plethora of stupid "makes bad unit less bad" strats out there, and just fix the units directly). But they are absolutely a significant source of rules bloat.
What prevents you from modifying Stratagems, banning chapter tactics, faction objective and combat doctrines?
Breadth. "Use 30k Invisibility, CAD only, one superheavy per 2k, 30k D table, no (whatever that one Daemon relic that made the 2++ deathstar work was), one upgrade gun per three in Windrider units" is a really short set of patches that fixes almost all the problem lists in 7th. The most unbalanced things in 8th/9th are combos rather than individual things, so you can't do a straightforward "no [this one thing]" patch to them, and you have to dig through every Codex looking for the broken stuff (thereby inevitably leading to arguments) while in 7th the vast majority of the broken things are core patches that apply universally to everyone.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/04 03:40:55
What prevents you from modifying Stratagems, banning chapter tactics, faction objective and combat doctrines?
Because those things are fundamental to the design of the codex and the edition in general. If i have to do that, then why am I playing the game? Furthermore that would require I even knew ALL OF THEM, and purchased ALL OF THE BOOKS.
Changing one psychic spell, and banning formations (which were tacked on and not integral to a codex), as well as the very easy to spot net lists is completely different to essentially trying to change the whole game.
What prevents you from modifying Stratagems, banning chapter tactics, faction objective and combat doctrines?
Breadth. "Use 30k Invisibility, CAD only, one superheavy per 2k, 30k D table, no (whatever that one Daemon relic that made the 2++ deathstar work was), one upgrade gun per three in Windrider units" is a really short set of patches that fixes almost all the problem lists in 7th. The most unbalanced things in 8th/9th are combos rather than individual things, so you can't do a straightforward "no [this one thing]" patch to them, and you have to dig through every Codex looking for the broken stuff (thereby inevitably leading to arguments) while in 7th the vast majority of the broken things are core patches that apply universally to everyone.
also, this. What you just described is pretty damn close to what our group actually did.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2021/06/04 03:51:01
yukishiro1 wrote: Saying "all 8th and 9th have that is new is strats," even if it were accurate - which it isn't - really isn't a very good argument. Having to be aware of and take into account 20ish stratagems for every faction in the game adds a tremendous amount of rules bloat to the game - literally hundreds of new rules you have to remember, many of which can lose you the game if you are not aware of even a single time.
I'm not saying that makes strats terrible or that I'd do away with them completely (though I'd certainly remove the plethora of stupid "makes bad unit less bad" strats out there, and just fix the units directly). But they are absolutely a significant source of rules bloat.
I like how you go back to jumping on the bloat argument and ignored my point that they help players have more tactical options to ensure there are less bad match ups. This insistance on turning tactical depth into "bloat" just proves how biased you are about this entire thing.
Frankly I'm done at this point. It's clear that no matter what points are raised or how often it's proven the complaints being made are incredibly insane (like who is spending nearly 700 points and 6 CP to buff a single unit of Repentia? Just because you can do something with the rules doesn't mean you will or even should. Look, I get it's hard to change people's minds when they've decided to take a stance on something, but the amount of doubling down on things or even claiming that things like points don't matter when discussing how much you can do thus ignoring the feasibility of doing such a thing meaning that such combos are going to be rare, if not never seen.
But go on, you and everyone else making up these claims about "bloat" can chalk it up as a win because I'm not wasting my time trying to put a window in my wall using my forehead.
H.B.M.C. wrote: We had that in the past, and it was never anything like the bloat of 9th Ed
Well, we never really had warlord traits ( way back ). Should those go away?
The important questions to me are:
1) Do these things feel like Warhammer
2) Can GW make the book reasonably balanced
All the things we're talking about are Warhammer at its core. This is what 40K has wanted to be for ages.
Is it difficult to manage? You bet. But it is also fun. If they can continue to make the changes/adjustments they've made recently then they appear to be more competent than they've ever been in the past.
Disagree with basically all of that (except the idea that warlord traits should go away).
They aren't Warhammer at its core. They're bolt on additions on bolt on additions on bolt on additions to a system that at its core is relatively simple. And doesn't need all that crap.
Whatever '40K wanted to be' (and I suspect you'll get 40K answers to that question), it isn't a leaning pile of bloat.
What you find fun and competent just gets a cocked eyebrow from me.
yukishiro1 wrote: Saying "all 8th and 9th have that is new is strats," even if it were accurate - which it isn't - really isn't a very good argument. Having to be aware of and take into account 20ish stratagems for every faction in the game adds a tremendous amount of rules bloat to the game - literally hundreds of new rules you have to remember, many of which can lose you the game if you are not aware of even a single time.
I'm not saying that makes strats terrible or that I'd do away with them completely (though I'd certainly remove the plethora of stupid "makes bad unit less bad" strats out there, and just fix the units directly). But they are absolutely a significant source of rules bloat.
I like how you go back to jumping on the bloat argument and ignored my point that they help players have more tactical options to ensure there are less bad match ups. This insistance on turning tactical depth into "bloat" just proves how biased you are about this entire thing.
Frankly I'm done at this point. It's clear that no matter what points are raised or how often it's proven the complaints being made are incredibly insane (like who is spending nearly 700 points and 6 CP to buff a single unit of Repentia? Just because you can do something with the rules doesn't mean you will or even should. Look, I get it's hard to change people's minds when they've decided to take a stance on something, but the amount of doubling down on things or even claiming that things like points don't matter when discussing how much you can do thus ignoring the feasibility of doing such a thing meaning that such combos are going to be rare, if not never seen.
But go on, you and everyone else making up these claims about "bloat" can chalk it up as a win because I'm not wasting my time trying to put a window in my wall using my forehead.
You could have saved a lot of space by just saying "I don't want to talk about this any more" and not typing out all the contentless personal insults because people disagreed with you on the internet. It is evidently the right call for you to step back from the thread in order to cool down a bit.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/04 04:32:40
vict0988 wrote: You would still be able to spam grav cannons, take Nobs in Nauts and summon an unlimited amount of Daemons.
This was literally never a problem. Probably because after we had established a series of minimal changes in order to help balance the game more, it set forth certain expectations in the community for how to behave.
How game design reinforces certain behavior is another topic however.
As an aside, we did ban unlimited summoning!!!
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/04 04:35:23
vict0988 wrote: You would still be able to spam grav cannons, take Nobs in Nauts and summon an unlimited amount of Daemons.
I played the daemon-summoning list for a bit, it wasn't anything like as broken as people like to claim it was. If you don't have access to the 2++ deathstar to fill space you lose Horrors too fast to actually snowball. Grav-spam is good, but without 550pts of free Razorbacks and on a table that's dense enough that vehicles can get cover it's far from game-breaking. I don't know why you're that worried about Nobs in 'Nauts, if you can't deal with that any mechanized army in the game will wipe the floor with you.
H.B.M.C. wrote: We had that in the past, and it was never anything like the bloat of 9th Ed
Well, we never really had warlord traits ( way back ). Should those go away?
The important questions to me are:
1) Do these things feel like Warhammer
2) Can GW make the book reasonably balanced
All the things we're talking about are Warhammer at its core. This is what 40K has wanted to be for ages.
Is it difficult to manage? You bet. But it is also fun. If they can continue to make the changes/adjustments they've made recently then they appear to be more competent than they've ever been in the past.
Disagree with basically all of that (except the idea that warlord traits should go away).
They aren't Warhammer at its core. They're bolt on additions on bolt on additions on bolt on additions to a system that at its core is relatively simple. And doesn't need all that crap.
Whatever '40K wanted to be' (and I suspect you'll get 40K answers to that question), it isn't a leaning pile of bloat.
What you find fun and competent just gets a cocked eyebrow from me.
After living through twenty five years of rules additions, and edition changes, I find it completely hilarious for anyone to make a statement about "Warhammer at its core" while complaining about rules additions.
What prevents you from modifying Stratagems, banning chapter tactics, faction objective and combat doctrines?
Because those things are fundamental to the design of the codex and the edition in general. If i have to do that, then why am I playing the game? Furthermore that would require I even knew ALL OF THEM, and purchased ALL OF THE BOOKS.
Changing one psychic spell, and banning formations (which were tacked on and not integral to a codex), as well as the very easy to spot net lists is completely different to essentially trying to change the whole game.
What prevents you from modifying Stratagems, banning chapter tactics, faction objective and combat doctrines?
Breadth. "Use 30k Invisibility, CAD only, one superheavy per 2k, 30k D table, no (whatever that one Daemon relic that made the 2++ deathstar work was), one upgrade gun per three in Windrider units" is a really short set of patches that fixes almost all the problem lists in 7th. The most unbalanced things in 8th/9th are combos rather than individual things, so you can't do a straightforward "no [this one thing]" patch to them, and you have to dig through every Codex looking for the broken stuff (thereby inevitably leading to arguments) while in 7th the vast majority of the broken things are core patches that apply universally to everyone.
also, this. What you just described is pretty damn close to what our group actually did.
But that spell was a core rule and Formations are literally part of a codex..... GW decided to fa grenades rather than Invis, its not like they didn't know about it. Thats like saying "Supplements for Marine codex shoul dbe ban like IH b.c its too strong" yes it was too strong and not "rule marines codex" but it was a rules for that codex.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/04 05:42:37
AnomanderRake wrote: I played the daemon-summoning list for a bit, it wasn't anything like as broken as people like to claim it was. If you don't have access to the 2++ deathstar to fill space you lose Horrors too fast to actually snowball.
With a "fair" list? Don't think so.
Grav-spam is good, but without 550pts of free Razorbacks and on a table that's dense enough that vehicles can get cover it's far from game-breaking.
Yeah, it's not game-breaking, just OP. So you still have a game with crap balance after implementing your house rules because the damage some weapons do is just mathematically nuts (and I think you've noticed this about 9th edition profiles). In 9th you can take an MSU list, that will nerf a lot of Stratagems and combos and then you can just not take the busted psychic powers, relics, WL traits and chapter tactics. Whatever your preference of core rules the codexes are bloated and badly balanced in 7th and 9th and if you want casual games you have to set expectations as two players playing a game or as a community for a period of time. I think it would be great if those discussions became easier to have and were less required, even if I enjoy game design and balancing things I don't think everybody does or should have to. But in casual gaming it's like a fourth pillar of the hobby (aside from building, painting and playing) to know which lists are OP or UP so you can create balanced games, it wasn't easy in 7th and it isn't easy in 9th.
MTG has the excuse that it has to be part of their business model to sell chaff and have lottery cards in their packs, but 40k doesn't need that, if the game was balanced people would buy what they like and expand their armies to try different tactics and counter their local or the greater meta as those metas evolve. I am pretty sure a lot of sales are getting killed by unfortunate rules writing. How many Gladiators have been sold? How many Gladiators could GW have sold if Gladiators were exactly as strong, but with different strengths and weaknesses from the best units Space Marines have available?
I don't know why you're that worried about Nobs in 'Nauts, if you can't deal with that any mechanized army in the game will wipe the floor with you.
GW made a boxed set with Nobs and a Gorkanaut and suggested it was great because you could move up the Naut, disembark and then charge. GW forgot that Gorkanauts weren't Assault Vehicles, just a classic GW blunder of not knowing their game and why Gorkanauts were useless as transports when Ork vehicles by default were Assault Vehicles and had to purchase an upgrade to lose it.
If someone wants to critic 8th and 9th editions, they are free to do so and I will be glad to read their points on the matter.
But if someone tries to do that while defending 7th... no, that's not something I can accept. It is not something that can be done in good faith.
Even with all the bans mentioned, the game would be utterly unplayable on competitive level. Sure, 7th could be good for fun and casual games if there is a good social contract between the two players, but that is true for all editions, no matter how much of a mess they were.
External balance was atrocious, and the only thing worse than that was the internal balance. The game was won or lost before you even needed to deploy, just a quick read to the lists already told you who won. The only cases where you couldn't do that, was if both players had brought insanely cheesy lists.
Oh look, I brought guards/nids/csm and he brought Necrons/CWE... I really wonder who's gonna win!
I mean, we are talking about an edition where pyrovores and wraithguards with D-scythes had the same cost...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/04 06:08:17
I don't know why you're that worried about Nobs in 'Nauts, if you can't deal with that any mechanized army in the game will wipe the floor with you.
GW made a boxed set with Nobs and a Gorkanaut and suggested it was great because you could move up the Naut, disembark and then charge. GW forgot that Gorkanauts weren't Assault Vehicles, just a classic GW blunder of not knowing their game and why Gorkanauts were useless as transports when Ork vehicles by default were Assault Vehicles and had to purchase an upgrade to lose it.
...Wait...so you're complaining that my suggested ban-list doesn't prevent the existence of bad things in the game?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoletta wrote: If someone wants to critic 8th and 9th editions, they are free to do so and I will be glad to read their points on the matter.
But if someone tries to do that while defending 7th... no, that's not something I can accept. It is not something that can be done in good faith...
I am, in good faith, trying to claim that 8th/9th are no better than 7th because I'm tired of people telling me "no matter how awful anything is now 7th was worse." I don't think it was.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/04 06:41:09
I don't know why you're that worried about Nobs in 'Nauts, if you can't deal with that any mechanized army in the game will wipe the floor with you.
GW made a boxed set with Nobs and a Gorkanaut and suggested it was great because you could move up the Naut, disembark and then charge. GW forgot that Gorkanauts weren't Assault Vehicles, just a classic GW blunder of not knowing their game and why Gorkanauts were useless as transports when Ork vehicles by default were Assault Vehicles and had to purchase an upgrade to lose it.
...Wait...so you're complaining that my suggested ban-list doesn't prevent the existence of bad things in the game?
yukishiro1 wrote: Saying "all 8th and 9th have that is new is strats," even if it were accurate - which it isn't - really isn't a very good argument. Having to be aware of and take into account 20ish stratagems for every faction in the game adds a tremendous amount of rules bloat to the game - literally hundreds of new rules you have to remember, many of which can lose you the game if you are not aware of even a single time.
I'm not saying that makes strats terrible or that I'd do away with them completely (though I'd certainly remove the plethora of stupid "makes bad unit less bad" strats out there, and just fix the units directly). But they are absolutely a significant source of rules bloat.
Just to point out, in 7th space marines had access to more psychic powers than they have stratagems now, spread across five books.
It's also worth noting that claiming that you need both the BRB and the GT pack and the Crusade Mission packs as proof of bloat is completely dishonest. Might as well claim that you need 30k books to play 7th. The core rules, one mission pack, your codex (+supplement if marines) and possibly two campaign books are still a trivial amount of rules compared to 40+ rules sources in 7th you had to get just to have all the rules for marines.
Claiming 9th is more bloated than 7th is objectively false, ClockworkZion is absolutely on spot here. You are allowed to like whatever you want, but if you seriously claim that 7th was better than 8th or 9th in regards of rules, you either are badly informed or flat out lying.
ClockworkZion wrote: ...Are we really pretending we couldn't stack rules onto single units like a Jenga tower of Negative Play Experiances? Because that is complete BS if we are...
No. We're pretending that the Jenga tower of Negative Play Experiences has somehow improved in 8th/9th, when it's at least as complex as the Jenga tower of Negative Play Experiences that was 7th, and frequently worse.
From my perspective the difference here is that one is baked into the fundamental game design, whereas in 7th edition formations, psychic shenanigans, and death stars could be much more easily mitigated by a community.
All of those death stars were easy to spot net lists and were NEVER taken to any of the campaigns i was in; formations were banned, and Invisibility was modified.
... aaand here we have it. "You cant play 9th without heavily changing it! 7th was much better! We just had to put house rules in place which completely changed 7th."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AnomanderRake wrote: I am, in good faith, trying to claim that 8th/9th are no better than 7th because I'm tired of people telling me "no matter how awful anything is now 7th was worse." I don't think it was.
Even if you think so, you are mostly ignoring Zion's arguments while making strawmen - for example always going back to the claim that the pile of repentia buffs that never actually comes up in games are more "bloated" than super-hero IC units from 7th or psychic armies which spent 15 minutes rolling for all their powers on dozens of tables. Counting every aura separately also is very dishonest - I'd bet there are more ICs conferring stuff in every codex of 7th than auras in 8th or 9th. Last but not least, it's very telling that 8th edition codices are picked as examples to show how much bloat auras and buff stratagems are causing in 9th, when GW is clearly cracking down on aura and buff stratagem availability in 9th edition codices.
So, if you really want to discuss this honestly and in good faith, I suggest addressing all of the opposing side's arguments and trying to avoid logical fallacies.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/06/04 07:43:24
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks do not think that purple makes them harder to see. They do think that camouflage does however, without knowing why. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
I don't know why you're that worried about Nobs in 'Nauts, if you can't deal with that any mechanized army in the game will wipe the floor with you.
GW made a boxed set with Nobs and a Gorkanaut and suggested it was great because you could move up the Naut, disembark and then charge. GW forgot that Gorkanauts weren't Assault Vehicles, just a classic GW blunder of not knowing their game and why Gorkanauts were useless as transports when Ork vehicles by default were Assault Vehicles and had to purchase an upgrade to lose it.
...Wait...so you're complaining that my suggested ban-list doesn't prevent the existence of bad things in the game?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoletta wrote: If someone wants to critic 8th and 9th editions, they are free to do so and I will be glad to read their points on the matter.
But if someone tries to do that while defending 7th... no, that's not something I can accept. It is not something that can be done in good faith...
I am, in good faith, trying to claim that 8th/9th are no better than 7th because I'm tired of people telling me "no matter how awful anything is now 7th was worse." I don't think it was.
So what was it you actually liked about 7th ed ? Or do/did you just hate 8th and 9th so badly that for you, all three editions were equally worthless ? For me, 7th was the edition that nearly killed the game, and I saw many players jump to warmastuff. I was really scared for my 5 armies, that I would be soon out of opponents to play with. Also I didn't blame the players jumping ship: as was said here in this thread, internal and external balance was so bad I thought they just made up codex and supplement rules (the base rules for 7th were not that bad) with 5 vodkas and 10 whiskeys in the belly, laughing out madly at how miserable they were going to make it for the players. I even suspected sabotage at some point, that the devs would then all join PP after sabotaging GW.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/04 07:49:01
Ere we go ere we go ere we go
Corona Givin’ Umies Da good ol Krulpin they deserve huh huh
Because those things are fundamental to the design of the codex and the edition in general. If i have to do that, then why am I playing the game? Furthermore that would require I even knew ALL OF THEM, and purchased ALL OF THE BOOKS.
Changing one psychic spell, and banning formations (which were tacked on and not integral to a codex), as well as the very easy to spot net lists is completely different to essentially trying to change the whole game.
Not true at all. Strategems, chapter traits, etc... are all additions to the core game, you don't need any of those rules to play the missions.
Ignoring them is much easier than changing something.
Those who defend 7th are probably people who had a strong codex in 7th and the models to play the army at competitive levels, then their codex sucked in the following edition(s) or they were forced to change their lists drastically in order to stay competitive and couldn't or didn't want to do it.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/04 07:52:00
I think it's a bit unfair to defend 8th/9th by comparing it to 7th, which is taken by a lot of people to be the worst 40k has ever been.
I think 7th had far too much bloat and wombo combos as well. So all the arguments of "Well 9th only has slightly more than 7th!" just reads like a massive admission that it's too much.
I can honestly say I feel like I only know about 75% of what my army can do at the moment, there's just too much for my little mind to receive, process, and understand despite my generally having a pretty good ability to grasp rules.
I've never had this problem in another game or edition, except for 7th.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/04 08:19:01
I think its fair to say some people (I'd probably number amongst them) would prefer unit's "power" to be rooted in their statline and their weapons statline. And less because they are faction A, in a chapter B detachment, in a pure faction A army, with a nearby warlord C wielding Relic D and Buffbot E while using stratagems E, F and G.
I think it is undoubtedly harder to know what "all" factions can do now than it was all the way back in say 3rd. I can't say it was true of 7th though, because my group regularly found ourselves having to look up certain unusual keywords despite playing it for years.
Maybe its just the way my mind works, but I don't think knowing one faction, and retaining a mental list of commonly used stratagems is *that* difficult. If need be write a cheat-sheet listing them by phase. If anything the whinge is usually that stratagem use is too mechanistic. I.E. you know you are going to use a pool of 3-4 every opportunity you can, and the rest are far more situational so rarely ever employed.
But really this debate seems to have moved into "what sort of game do you like" rather than "balance". I feel 9th is far more balanced than 7th ever was just because GW is at least vaguely following along. For example DE have been nerfed after 2 months - not left to rule the roost for years. (Admittedly GSC players may feel differently - but its not as bad as it was.)
kirotheavenger wrote: I think it's a bit unfair to defend 8th/9th by comparing it to 7th, which is taken by a lot of people to be the worst 40k has ever been.
I think 7th had far too much bloat and wombo combos as well. So all the arguments of "Well 9th only has slightly more than 7th!" just reads like a massive admission that it's too much.
I can honestly say I feel like I only know about 75% of what my army can do at the moment, there's just too much for my little mind to receive, process, and understand despite my generally having a pretty good ability to grasp rules.
I've never had this problem in another game or edition, except for 7th.
Ok, fair.
Honestly, I found 3rd(?) Edition harder to understand. But I was younger and played less often
15k+
Emperor's Spears 2500
Beastmen 10k
