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.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

Is the issue that some people feel the need to memorize all the Stratagems? Are they worried about gotchas but are not regular players? What is the worst thing that happens if someone springs a Stratagem on you that you had no idea was possible?

I think I can describe my beef with Stratagems as follows:

In previous editions, in particular 3-5th, I could more or less look at the table and understand very easily what each unit was capable of, and create a plan to interact with it. The number of variables was limited, and the really major "unforseeable" variable involved was dice.

Strats (and bespoke rules bloat) add an additional layer of capabilities on top of the basic layer of stats and weapons, and make it much harder to guage the potential vectors of attack each unit has to offer, and it is an incredibly potent layer of additional stuff. Thus, the "CCG" label. It's interactivity that has less to do with inherent abilities of the unit and feel more like "off table powers" that are affecting the battle in game winning ways.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
...The divide is between people who do play and have experience and those who don't play and have opinions.

There is nothing we can convey that they're actually going to listen to. It's pointless and it's why I stopped bothering with this thread.

All united, however, by the absolute conviction that their opinions or their experiences represent universally applicable truths and the only reason anyone could possibly disagree is because they don't actually play or are otherwise an idiot.

Sure, I guess that's a fair criticism, but when evidence is presented it seems to be roundly ignored.

I get a lot of the criticism coming from people who played a different flavor of 8th, but a lot has changed.

So crusade evening at the club.

I played a succession of games where we used special rules to beat each other. In my case re-rolling the variable firepower on Catachan vehicles and for various opponents remembering a plethora of special rules. In every game I and my various opponents forgot rules. There wasn’t much manoeuvre but a lot of dice rolling and use of strats to ignore stuff like vehicle damage, restrictions after leaving combat etc.

Afterwards we all played snake oil (lots of laughter and merriment) and ticket to ride (five happy wargamers enjoying plastic train laying). We are all dyed in the wool GW fanatics. Conversion drifted around model releases, kill team, etc. But 40k wise fun was notably absent for a lot of the evening despite us all wanting to play and wanting to enjoy it.

"The only reason someone could disagree with me is because they don't actually play the game!" is a pretty damn arrogant stance to take. Granted, it's not outright insulting like Jid's "The only reason someone could disagree with me is because they're a drooling illiterate dimwit!", but it's not that much better.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
All united, however, by the absolute conviction that their opinions or their experiences represent universally applicable truths and the only reason anyone could possibly disagree is because they don't actually play or are otherwise an idiot.

C'mon man! Give Dae a break. After all, he stopped bothering with this thread... other than all the posts he's made since. Like the last one. And the one before that.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
I argue that 40K is a clean gaming experience with respect to the rules. We can dance around the difference between complexity and complicated, but I judge a game's complexity by how many times I have to dig through the rule book during the game because my opponent and I are hung up on something. Happened in editions before 8th. Doesn't really happen for me now. It does happen in Flames of War.

Maybe it's just a community thing but me and my opponents have to look up Stratagems pretty often to make sure we get the CP cost or units it can apply to or whatever right, you also sometimes get a hunch you might want to use a Stratagem and then have to look through your Stratagems to see if the Stratagem you think applies is right for the situation. 7th was also too complex in some areas, 9th is only too complex in the Stratagem and chapter tactics/combat doctrines department, but that department just seems to grow and grow since the launch of 8th. The looking things up metric is an interesting way to judge the complexity of 40k and I definitely see things from your point of view now because looking rules up is rarer for me now than in previous editions as well.

 Insectum7 wrote:


In previous editions, in particular 3-5th, I could more or less look at the table and understand very easily what each unit was capable of, and create a plan to interact with it. The number of variables was limited, and the really major "unforseeable" variable involved was dice.

I think this is mostly a problem with datasheets' bloat. I mean do you see how many datasheets are now included in codexes belonging to the biggest factions? 3rd edition SM had somethig like 30 datasheets, now they have 200. Same with orks. I haven't had problems memorizing the best stratagems from enemy armies so far, but I can't possibly remember all the enemy units and weapons profiles. If I may mistakes it's because of that, not because I wasn't aware of a hidden tool to enhance a unit or cripple an opponent's one.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
...The divide is between people who do play and have experience and those who don't play and have opinions.

There is nothing we can convey that they're actually going to listen to. It's pointless and it's why I stopped bothering with this thread.

All united, however, by the absolute conviction that their opinions or their experiences represent universally applicable truths and the only reason anyone could possibly disagree is because they don't actually play or are otherwise an idiot.

Sure, I guess that's a fair criticism, but when evidence is presented it seems to be roundly ignored.

I get a lot of the criticism coming from people who played a different flavor of 8th, but a lot has changed.

You can't provide "evidence" that someone's subjective experience is wrong. If you want to try and convince someone to view their subjective experience of the game differently you might want to start from the position that their subjective experience is based on things that actually happened to them rather than jumping from "your subjective experience is different from mine" straight to "well I guess you didn't actually play the game."

My subjective experience of playing 9th consists largely of being on one side or the other of 2-3 turn tablings, and then being told "well, if people bought different models the game would have gone differently." You can explain to me at great length that 2-3 turn tablings are actually supremely unlikely because the game is much more balanced than that and if I engaged properly with the game and bought different models I'd find it's actually incredibly fun, and you could be completely right, except for the fact that I don't want to buy different models, I want to use my models, all of which GW has arbitrarily decided need to be garbage for a while. The reason you're having fun and I'm not isn't that one of us is an idiot or is making things up rather than actually having played the game or is in some way "wrong", it's that we have a different set of priorities for the game. My priorities include the basic requirement that I shouldn't have to lose games purely by liking the wrong models, because I didn't feel like I did in 7th and before, and I've never felt that way in any other minis game, but I feel that way constantly in 8th/9th.

I'm not interested in trying to convince you your subjective experience of the game is wrong. You're having fun, that's great, woo, good for you. What I want is for the people who like 9th to stop trying to prove to me that my subjective experience is "wrong" and 9th is an objectively superior game, because it's not. It's better at executing your priorities than other editions/other games, sure, but it's really kind of awful at executing any of my priorities. And I'm still sitting here grumbling because I think this pervasive myth that 9e is objectively superior to all the competition is horribly destructive to tabletop gaming as a whole; I keep seeing people quit wargaming entirely or never start at all because of this idea that if 40k isn't for them and 40k is the best wargaming has to offer there's no point looking at anything else because it'll be worse.

Being punished for picking a specific army or specific is probably the worse thing about w40k. Worse then the cost or any other thing, I can think off. Specially when combined with the advice people give, about picking what you like the looks to play etc.

There should be no, you picked tau, enjoy spending 700+ dollars on an army which will be bad for a year plus. It really doesn't work for anyone who can't just throw 700-800$ every few months to pick an army.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Spoiler:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
...The divide is between people who do play and have experience and those who don't play and have opinions.

There is nothing we can convey that they're actually going to listen to. It's pointless and it's why I stopped bothering with this thread.

All united, however, by the absolute conviction that their opinions or their experiences represent universally applicable truths and the only reason anyone could possibly disagree is because they don't actually play or are otherwise an idiot.

Sure, I guess that's a fair criticism, but when evidence is presented it seems to be roundly ignored.

I get a lot of the criticism coming from people who played a different flavor of 8th, but a lot has changed.

You can't provide "evidence" that someone's subjective experience is wrong. If you want to try and convince someone to view their subjective experience of the game differently you might want to start from the position that their subjective experience is based on things that actually happened to them rather than jumping from "your subjective experience is different from mine" straight to "well I guess you didn't actually play the game."

My subjective experience of playing 9th consists largely of being on one side or the other of 2-3 turn tablings, and then being told "well, if people bought different models the game would have gone differently." You can explain to me at great length that 2-3 turn tablings are actually supremely unlikely because the game is much more balanced than that and if I engaged properly with the game and bought different models I'd find it's actually incredibly fun, and you could be completely right, except for the fact that I don't want to buy different models, I want to use my models, all of which GW has arbitrarily decided need to be garbage for a while. The reason you're having fun and I'm not isn't that one of us is an idiot or is making things up rather than actually having played the game or is in some way "wrong", it's that we have a different set of priorities for the game. My priorities include the basic requirement that I shouldn't have to lose games purely by liking the wrong models, because I didn't feel like I did in 7th and before, and I've never felt that way in any other minis game, but I feel that way constantly in 8th/9th.

I'm not interested in trying to convince you your subjective experience of the game is wrong. You're having fun, that's great, woo, good for you. What I want is for the people who like 9th to stop trying to prove to me that my subjective experience is "wrong" and 9th is an objectively superior game, because it's not. It's better at executing your priorities than other editions/other games, sure, but it's really kind of awful at executing any of my priorities. And I'm still sitting here grumbling because I think this pervasive myth that 9e is objectively superior to all the competition is horribly destructive to tabletop gaming as a whole; I keep seeing people quit wargaming entirely or never start at all because of this idea that if 40k isn't for them and 40k is the best wargaming has to offer there's no point looking at anything else because it'll be worse.

I mean, i am an outspoken opponent of stratagems and the new subfaction bloat, especially since GW still avoids putting an actual pricetags on these things in pts and therefore will forever fail to balance them.
I also am an opponent to the believe that stratagems somehow make an army work more closely to how it should on the tabletop/ faction how it operates, because the disbalance due to no pointscost will make opportunity costs to take the next best thing skyrocket and therefore kill off a lot of such narrative inclination.
Also half the stratagems are just necessary equipment, considering f.e AA missiles... but since the game got streamlined anyways down...
However 9th is vastly better to 8th.... IF you have the corresponding dex and ut content DLC..


HOWEVER:
The phenomenon you describe is pretty much indicative on the near monopolistic nature of exposure and size of the Community of GW which i agree with is a detriment overall. There's also the debate about getting other games started and often how insignificant the chances are that something other sticks around, that has to do with the upper part, because the percived domination makes investment secure.

IoW, it's less the quality of games and more the size of the GW community pool that allows it to maintain its stranglehold.
And its also this that allows GW to get away wih BS like drukhari or admech and cut content DLC:

AnomanderRake wrote: My priorities include the basic requirement that I shouldn't have to lose games purely by liking the wrong models, because I didn't feel like I did in 7th and before, and I've never felt that way in any other minis game, but I feel that way constantly in 8th/9th.

That entirely depends on what your models are. In 7th I had 10k points of orks and 90% of the lists I could make with my collection was pure garbage. Tabled at top of turn 3 at the very best. Now I have 6-7k points of orks and countless different builds that work, only a few models are actually shelved for good. Same with drukhari, now I can play whatever list I want while in 7th a large chunk of my models were useless. I also halved my SW collection in the meanwhile, from 8k to 4k, for the very same reason. And I'm talking about casual games, I never went to a tournament.

If you have an army that was shaped with the 7th codex in mind of course it would be good then and not now. But most of the average collections of models, those with a big of everything instead of spamming a few units that used to be good, are in a much better state in 9th than in 7th.

If someone wants to put effort into it, I'm confident the result would be, that the internal balancing of units for 9th codizes is vastly superior to prior editions.

Only helps you if you already got your book, but that is another issue in itself.

 Blackie wrote:
If you have an army that was shaped with the 7th codex in mind of course it would be good then and not now. But most of the average collections of models, those with a big of everything instead of spamming a few units that used to be good, are in a much better state in 9th than in 7th.

I have no idea how GK armies looked in 7th. But what was considered the only viable stuff in 8th ed, is now the only stuff viable again. 8th armies that were considered good spamed NDKs, strikes and interceptors and always run Draigo. And the new codex armies spam strikes, NDKS, always run draigo and maybe run interceptors or purifires. It doesn't feel nice when what you like is termintors. And it is odd too, because GW could make termintors good for DA. Plus waiting 4 years to get the same kind of a list again, doesn't feel well. Rule set of 9th maybe better, but the end expiriance is codex dependent. Ain't even a GK or me thing. Doubt necron players, even those that started in 9th, are very happy right now. And they know they won't get any updated for years to come.

 Blackie wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:


In previous editions, in particular 3-5th, I could more or less look at the table and understand very easily what each unit was capable of, and create a plan to interact with it. The number of variables was limited, and the really major "unforseeable" variable involved was dice.

I think this is mostly a problem with datasheets' bloat. I mean do you see how many datasheets are now included in codexes belonging to the biggest factions? 3rd edition SM had somethig like 30 datasheets, now they have 200. Same with orks. I haven't had problems memorizing the best stratagems from enemy armies so far, but I can't possibly remember all the enemy units and weapons profiles. If I may mistakes it's because of that, not because I wasn't aware of a hidden tool to enhance a unit or cripple an opponent's one.

There's definitely bloat in many dimensions, but I'd argue that's not it, because the amount of meaningful unit variation that's been added is pretty negligible outside of superheavies (and bespoke rules). Datasheet (and weapon) additions are most of the time sitting in between (or on top of) previously existing units in terms of design space, and therefore still predictable/model-able. Stratagems are a different sort of asset to "model" in our brain. The closest thing to their effects in prior editions might be psychic powers, which function fairly similarly in terms of their effect (modifying stats, causing mortal wounds, etc.) but Psychic powers were generally more limited in their variation and usually confined to specific models, as well as built for in army design and paid for with points. Overall Psychic powers were more limited because of these factors, and because they were more limited, the game didn't revolve around them unless one player forced the issue with a very psyker-heavy army (which in turn probably meant that they suffered in some other area, since psykers cost points).

Stratagems are unavoidable though, in terms of their utility and potency. They're this whole other layer of "off table" interaction that requires attention.

There is a difference between units that are just bad or in the "why bother" tier like Servitors or SM Scouts and "it isn't best in slot but it works outside of tournaments", which imho most 9th edition units fall into. Examples being Plague Marines, Tactical Marines and GK Terminators.

Necrons are absolutely fine competitive wise, as their 4 top 4 finishes last month showcase.

I'd say 3 out of 4 lists used different kind of unit combinations to pilot to victory, so outside of tournaments, you have some good selection of units, too.

Funny enough servitors are a main stay of GK armies. Two units in a ton of armies.

Also as an off topic , bloat is not always bad. It is a safety thing too. when you the "200 datasheets" the chance of 10 of them making a good army, is much higher, then when you have 30. That doesn't mean that 30 datasheets armies are bad. There was a time when knights were are good with like 5. But lots of units is good, for casual play. In that you don't get locked in to a bad army.

Tau for example. Technically a horrible, horrible army in 8th. When run without commanders and drones. With those, maybe a bit boring, but good to play with.

Harlis or Inari on the other hand, are either extremly over tuned or really bad.

a_typical_hero wrote:
If someone wants to put effort into it, I'm confident the result would be, that the internal balancing of units for 9th codizes is vastly superior to prior editions.

Only helps you if you already got your book, but that is another issue in itself.

I'd take that bet. Maybe its true for like Space Marines because they have SO MANY units but the Necron book has loads of dud units, as does the Sisters book. Just skimming the Sisters tactics thread it seems like everyone thinks all the tanks are terrible except for Rhinos which is really some mean feat to make not even ONE good tank in a codex. Paragon warsuits are apparently terrible from what people have been saying in the other thread. Most lists seem to spam either rets, dominions or repentia with a few mortifiers and a minimum amount of basic Sisters.

I've not looked at the Necron threads recently but I remember that it was absolutely underwhelming and again, had loads of dud units.

I've not even bothered looking at the AdMech codex yet because both Sisters and Necrons were so bleh in terms of rules for me.

I look forward to the 9th Ed Tyranid codex to see which single good unit we'll have to spam this edition.

200 Space Marine datasheets is bad, because about 2/3 are just copies of some other unit.

Which is better? Tacticals or Intercessors? They both do the same thing in the same way, they're never both going to be viable.
Which is exactly what we've seen. In 8th Tacticals did it better, now Intercessors do it better.

 Sim-Life wrote:
I'd take that bet. Maybe its true for like Space Marines because they have SO MANY units but the Necron book has loads of dud units, as does the Sisters book. Just skimming the Sisters tactics thread it seems like everyone thinks all the tanks are terrible except for Rhinos which is really some mean feat to make not even ONE good tank in a codex. Paragon warsuits are apparently terrible from what people have been saying in the other thread. Most lists seem to spam either rets, dominions or repentia with a few mortifiers and a minimum amount of basic Sisters.

I've not looked at the Necron threads recently but I remember that it was absolutely underwhelming and again, had loads of dud units.

I've not even bothered looking at the AdMech codex yet because both Sisters and Necrons were so bleh in terms of rules for me.

I look forward to the 9th Ed Tyranid codex to see which single good unit we'll have to spam this edition.

We have to differentiate between "bad units", "okay units" and "this is what you should bring to tournaments". People in tactica threads are most likely looking for optimisation of their list. Statements like "this isn't the best unit for the job, but I like it and it works for me" have no place there, as had been stated in the past from participants of these threads. Vehicles without any inbuilt defensive mechanism like -1d or -1 to hit or invul saves across the board are lacklustre this edition, that is true. infantry though is - in my perception - mostly fine.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:I argue that 40K is a clean gaming experience with respect to the rules. We can dance around the difference between complexity and complicated, but I judge a game's complexity by how many times I have to dig through the rule book during the game because my opponent and I are hung up on something. Happened in editions before 8th. Doesn't really happen for me now. It does happen in Flames of War.

I look at the shooting rules, vehicle rules, blast templates etc and I see a more streamlined game than the editions before 8th Edition.

As far as the core rules go I would agree. I think they maybe went a bit too far in streamlining things but the basic rules are pretty easy to understand and I rarely have to refer to them during a game.

I completely disagree that I spend less time digging through rulebooks in 9th though. Between double-checking unit special rules and flicking back and forth through the list of stratagems to confirm the CP cost, whether it applies in this situation and to the appropriate unit or whether it even exists at all I spend way more time looking at my rulebook or cycling through datacards than I did pre-8th edition. It doesn't help that GW seem to have a magical ability to layout their Codices exactly wrong. I don't know how they do it but regardless of the method they choose and the order of the rules it always seems like all the rules are as inconvenient to find as possible in a Codex.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
I quite like Stratagems. I know the ones I am intending to use, and I have familiarity with other Codexes but not memorization. In the interests of disclosure I do play fairly regularly, although the winter and spring saw lockdown interruptions. My first real games post-3rd lockdown were in a local tourney. No rules issues. My opponent on Saturday asked me ahead of time if I could bring my Astra Militarum since he not faced them in some time. It was my first game with my AM in months (and 2nd AM game in 9th), so I did a little reading and planning ahead of time and knew which Stratagems I intended to use. No brain meltdown and no issues during the game. I also managed my own expectations.

Is the issue that some people feel the need to memorize all the Stratagems? Are they worried about gotchas but are not regular players? What is the worst thing that happens if someone springs a Stratagem on you that you had no idea was possible? You might lose the game? OK - so you won't get caught out by that again. I don't like gotchas myself, to be clear, and most players will offer a quick rundown of their Strats at the start of the game if their opponent has not faced their list. I assume, perhaps wrongly, that regular posters here enjoy investing their time in thinking about the game since they are clearly invested enough to write about it? So read about some other faction's money-making Stratagems from time to time?

One of the problem is that the effect of stratagems can range from changing a dice roll from failure to success all the way up to making a fairly innocuous unit absolutely monstrous. While you can probably give a quick rundown of the most common strats you might use there are always situations where a previously unexplained one might suddenly be the perfect choice. The problem for me is how uninteractive the whole system is and how it doesn't feel like it's a test of player skill at times because it's really just about your opponent applying a (known or otherwise) set of stratagems to inflate the power of their army beyond what you can see just from reading the rules for their units. It removes player agency and becomes about setting up your combos before your opponent can.

As an example of the difference in approach, WM/H was fairly well known for its at-times insane combos. The difference for me is that a WM/H army is usually a fairly small number of units, it uses a pretty solid USR system and (almost) all the rules for the models are available on the unit cards themselves. So while there are some truly silly combos you can pull off in that game all the moving parts for those combos are freely available to both players at all times. I don't have to worry there's a whole extra list of spells not on their card that their caster has access to, for example. The same is true in X-Wing. All the rules your opponent is going to use are on the cards in front of them and it's usually pretty obvious if they're trying to set up some super-combo so the skill comes from trying to avoid or execute that combo while both players have full knowledge of its existence.

One of 40k's other problems is many stats just let you break the normal rules in ways that doesn't promote skill or interactive gameplay. The much-maligned AdMech Enriched Rounds strat, for example, is hardly a skilled move on the AdMech player's part. It's just a giant damage buff for no effort. The same is true of the many shoots/fights twice strats that GW are gradually phasing out.

Daedalus81 wrote:

The divide is between people who do play and have experience and those who don't play and have opinions.

There is nothing we can convey that they're actually going to listen to. It's pointless and it's why I stopped bothering with this thread.

You've already been told more than once that this utter bullgak assertion is utter bullgak. Instead of setting up your row of strawmen you could try to engage with the arguments.

a_typical_hero wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
I'd take that bet. Maybe its true for like Space Marines because they have SO MANY units but the Necron book has loads of dud units, as does the Sisters book. Just skimming the Sisters tactics thread it seems like everyone thinks all the tanks are terrible except for Rhinos which is really some mean feat to make not even ONE good tank in a codex. Paragon warsuits are apparently terrible from what people have been saying in the other thread. Most lists seem to spam either rets, dominions or repentia with a few mortifiers and a minimum amount of basic Sisters.

I've not looked at the Necron threads recently but I remember that it was absolutely underwhelming and again, had loads of dud units.

I've not even bothered looking at the AdMech codex yet because both Sisters and Necrons were so bleh in terms of rules for me.

I look forward to the 9th Ed Tyranid codex to see which single good unit we'll have to spam this edition.

We have to differentiate between "bad units", "okay units" and "this is what you should bring to tournaments". People in tactica threads are most likely looking for optimisation of their list. Statements like "this isn't the best unit for the job, but I like it and it works for me" have no place there, as had been stated in the past from participants of these threads. Vehicles without any inbuilt defensive mechanism like -1d or -1 to hit or invul saves across the board are lacklustre this edition, that is true. infantry though is - in my perception - mostly fine.

Are those goalposts heavy?

a_typical_hero wrote:

We have to differentiate between "bad units", "okay units" and "this is what you should bring to tournaments". People in tactica threads are most likely looking for optimisation of their list. Statements like "this isn't the best unit for the job, but I like it and it works for me" have no place there, as had been stated in the past from participants of these threads. Vehicles without any inbuilt defensive mechanism like -1d or -1 to hit or invul saves across the board are lacklustre this edition, that is true. infantry though is - in my perception - mostly fine.

Exactly this. And even if we just consider tournaments the internal balance between codexes is already pretty high. Taking a look at lists that placed at GTs so far we can see a wide range of units represented. Some are present everytime, some are more uncommon but even a few units that are considered lackluster can be part of a top list, and in fact tournaments results are showing that. It couldn't be possible in editions like 7th.

Orks even had results by using the Blood Axe klan which is unviersally considered as garbage. And yet someone could make it work. Most of the stuff that people consider bad isn't actually bad, it just requires more attention, experience and synergies. Sometimes they're worse than other units, but not significantly worse.

Sisters codex is a good example of that. There's only a few datasheets that will likely be shelved in this edition. The vast majority of their codex is playable.

 Sim-Life wrote:
Are those goalposts heavy?

It's not fun discussing with you if you want to be a donkey.

"The internal balance is much better than in previous editions" is not at odds with or "moving goalposts" when you categorise a codex' units into "bad (=makes you worse for using the unit)", "okay (=for casual and competitive)" and "best in slot (=for tournament)". It is a way how to measure the initial statement.

a_typical_hero wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Are those goalposts heavy?

It's not fun discussing with you if you want to be a donkey.

"The internal balance is much better than in previous editions" is not at odds with or "moving goalposts" when you categorise a codex' units into "bad (=makes you worse for using the unit)", "okay (=for casual and competitive)" and "best in slot (=for tournament)". It is a way how to measure the initial statement.

You said internal balance was better than previous editions then moved your stance to its better than previous editions IF YOU PLAY CASUALLY. There was a very clear goalpost shift.

I guess what it really boils down to is that 9th edition is UNNECESSARILY complicated (unwieldy, bloated, etc.). It's not that you can't easily learn it, but some things could be so much easier. I'm gonna use Orks as an example, simply because its the army I know most about.

I'm not even talking about strats (which I absolutely loath, but to each their own), but about stuff like:

You add a new unit (in this case Beast Snagga boyz) where you could use an existing concept ('ardboyz)

introduce a whole new keyword (which, again, is unnecessary)

Introduce a "Not-Powerklaw" and a "Not-Bigshoota"

Why do Orks have to have 3 versions of a Powerklaw? Why do Beastsnaggas have to have their own unique Keyword (and why is the Painboss in here???)? You could even argue that Beastsnaggas fullfill almost the same role as the common Choppa/Slugga Orkboy so why add them in the first place.

And this is just one example. The new Black Templar "Not-Heavy Flamer" is the same thing!

EDIT: Im aware that a "new" player wouldn't know about 'ardboyz and the fact that beastsnaggas are new, but unnecessary keyword interaction still can lead to more questions than a simply absolute statement like "all ork infantery"

 Sim-Life wrote:
You said internal balance was better than previous editions then moved your stance to its better than previous editions IF YOU PLAY CASUALLY. There was a very clear goalpost shift.

"Okay units" can still work in a tournament, they are just not "best in slot", as only one unit can be that by definition. If I gave the impression that "okay" is for casual only, I apologise. That was not my intention.

 Blackie wrote:


Exactly this. And even if we just consider tournaments the internal balance between codexes is already pretty high. Taking a look at lists that placed at GTs so far we can see a wide range of units represented. Some are present everytime, some are more uncommon but even a few units that are considered lackluster can be part of a top list, and in fact tournaments results are showing that. It couldn't be possible in editions like 7th.

Orks even had results by using the Blood Axe klan which is unviersally considered as garbage. And yet someone could make it work. Most of the stuff that people consider bad isn't actually bad, it just requires more attention, experience and synergies. Sometimes they're worse than other units, but not significantly worse.

Sisters codex is a good example of that. There's only a few datasheets that will likely be shelved in this edition. The vast majority of their codex is playable.

That does depend on the army though. You are not going to see a lot of GK armies build with terminators in it, instead of strikes. Or running paladins or dreadnoughts, instead of NDKs. I doubt anyone will ever use a non NDK GM too. It all boils down to what rules a faction gets from GW, and if there is enough very powerful stuff to carry a list.

a_typical_hero wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
You said internal balance was better than previous editions then moved your stance to its better than previous editions IF YOU PLAY CASUALLY. There was a very clear goalpost shift.

"Okay units" can still work in a tournament, they are just not "best in slot", as only one unit can be that by definition. If I gave the impression that "okay" is for casual only, I apologise. That was not my intention.

But if some units are overwhelmingly good that they render other units not worth taking then the internal balance isn't that good. And "better than previous editions" isn't really much of a defence. Drinking pee is better than eating poo but it doesn't make drinking pee good just because you don't have to eat the poo anymore.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

moreorless wrote:
I do think people who go to events at all are probably a bit over represented here as that kind of involvement is also I'd imagine likely to push you towards an online community

I suspect there are still large numbers of GW's customers were gaming is between a small group of friends, maybe with some small local organisation that I think that is actually part of the reason for the love of depth of stat like rules. 40K isnt a massively complex game in its core rules and well suited to casual gaming but I think you have a very large depth of variables that can allow for variety of games even between the same faction. If I have a say Ultramarines and my friend has Orks and we play each other once a fortnight theres a lot of potential for those two armies against each other to play differently via troop choice, loadouts, strats, etc.

That depends on the army. My Slaanesh Daemons lists can't really vary much - they have a single troops choice, a plethora of HQs (the hardest slot to proliferate in a list), one Elite, like 2 Fast Attack, and 2 Heavy Support (which are "chariot" and "bigger chariot"). If you add in "generic" daemons that can be Slaanesh allegiance, you get one more of each choice except troops and elites, which remain only a single option.

If, in a hypothetical local meta, my friends find a way to trounce my Daemons (or alternatively refuse to change when getting beaten repeatedly) then our games simply aren't going to be fun, as I am incapable of changing without buying a whole different army.

I'd agree its not really balanced and certain generally more popular factions do have a lot of variability built into them but the idea is the same, the large number of variables for certain factions do mean that if your playing mostly games between the same ones you still have a lot of variables. In that situation as well its also much more likely your going to get to know the other faction well and can make more informed choices rather than a player having to face many different factions in events.

I do tend to think thats always really been GW's core market as well and what they target a lot of their devolpment at.

 Sim-Life wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
You said internal balance was better than previous editions then moved your stance to its better than previous editions IF YOU PLAY CASUALLY. There was a very clear goalpost shift.

"Okay units" can still work in a tournament, they are just not "best in slot", as only one unit can be that by definition. If I gave the impression that "okay" is for casual only, I apologise. That was not my intention.

But if some units are overwhelmingly good that they render other units not worth taking then the internal balance isn't that good. And "better than previous editions" isn't really much of a defence. Drinking pee is better than eating poo but it doesn't make drinking pee good just because you don't have to eat the poo anymore.

I think it is fair to say 9th is better than 7th.

I also think that doesn't refute that 9th is flawed.

Your post hits it on the head - a lot of the posts saying "9th isn't bad" are doing so by implicitly setting 7th as the goalpost for "good" (and then being like "so because 9th isn't that bad, the only way you could dislike it is if you don't play!" or some variation).

It is possible for a player to dislike the game at the end of 7th AND dislike 9th edition.

"At least your gak sandwich is on rye, not on wheat" is unconvincing.

Most 'oldhammer' people hold up 5th as the best 40k has ever been, not 7th.

I see 7th; particularly all it did wrong with stuff like formations, held up almost as a strawman by proponents of 9th more often than people saying they dislike 9th.