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.

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, I like a well-balanced game. I like a game where player skill at the table is the main determinant of victory and defeat. 40k... Is not that. And will probably never be that. GW just doesn't care enough to make a balanced game.

But! I also like customization. I like being able to tweak and modify models and lists and all that. And GW used to be good about that. Nowadays... Not so much.

Look at Dark Eldar. Stonkingly powerful! Really flipping boring.

I feel like, if GW isn't going to do more than cursory balance, they should at least make it so you can customize the ever-loving hell out of your guys. But that's going away, and it sucks.

Agree? Disagree? Am I a moron, or do you feel similarly?

I would ask you - what is it that makes you want to play 40k?

In my case it was the imagery and miniatures, but I played the game despite the rules. Eventually I got sick of the cycle of 6 months to create an army > play three games, remember why you stopped playing it before > gap then 6 months to create a new army and repeat.

If it's the miniatures, you can find lots of online groups now with older editions of the game being played which might be more to your taste.
The Horus Heresy ruleset is more or less an 'official' extension of 7th edition. A lot of people say that had its own problems, but nonetheless it's an alternative to current editions, and has a great community.

If it's the imagery and background that pulls you in, have you considered Adeptus Titanicus or Epic? The former is still officially supported, and for the latter there is a sizeable social media community, and depending on where you live it shouldn't be too hard to find players.

I do think though that it's almost like a lot of people are 'trapped' into only playing modern 40k. It's like only playing a CD you don't really like, or a video game that you've completed but just come back to because of familiarity. There is so much more out there, certainly a lot more better crafted (even within 40k's own history and GW's alternate games), it can be the hardest thing to do but making that jump to a new games system can really revitalise your interest in wargaming.

I wouldn't remove stratagems, I'd remove all army specific ones, make some character specific ones, and make the rest generic. I'd also heavily limit CP.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

Semper wrote:
Meh, give me back the indexes and early 8th. On the whole that was a nice pick up and play game.

If we're getting flavour though, CSM 3.5 dex levels with early 8th edition game rules and 5th ed USR.

Please no, 8, especially early 8th was a hot mess

Early 8th was some good times. Any of you remember index bubblechukkas?, for sure one of the absolute best things to come from modern 40k…. Until it just died .

Exalted!

I agree I'd take that over the new one ever time. I did the one form the codex a little wrong but it was still just as fun. I just rolled each dice at each step instead of all at once and it was good fun and dead killy from time to time. Not a fan of the current one. Toooo BLAND.

And I'd take the index list over the current codex as well. Just not a fan of this codex. GW was all like "these will be the best book each faction has ever had" and I have yet to see the books they were talking about.
They should of said, we hate Ork boys and we plan to give you a list where you just don't need to buy them let alone have them in your army lists and we're more than happy to just keep them in our warehouse.

And before some one makes a snarky remark about that, yes, I will be bringing that up as how I want to field my Orks for the next time I get them on the table with my usual Skrumgrod, the only opponent I play 40K with now days. He'll cry about it because he's only prepping for his next tournament but maybe I can twist his arm. Other wise the Orks won't be out for a game.
I'd gladly give up T5 for a Mob rule that actually helps me.

I do think though that it's almost like a lot of people are 'trapped' into only playing modern 40k.

A lot of that is because (in my experience) vast swathes of this community will only play what is active and "living" and anything past or dead is left behind.

Finding people to play older editions is insanely difficult (in my experience). I know it can be done but the effort you have to spend to find such a game is often more than most people are willing to endure.

Especially since the main draw of 40k (in my experience) for most people is that you can find a game anywhere on the planet at any time and that your monetary investment into the game is almost 100% secure.

If you had to put energy into drumming up a community for 40k like almost every other game, I seriously doubt it'd be where it is today. Most places (all places I've been to) there is and has been a thriving 40k community already prebuilt. No other game can say that. And older editions share that same issue because you have to find someone willing to invest in older editions where their investment is not so safe, and they may own models that they can never (or rarely) use (like most other games out there).

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Here's what i would do:


-Remove Stratagems

Stratagems are fine, it's the straight up attack/defense ones with no prerequisites that need to go. One Primaris unit going Transhuman just doesn't make sense. Did the other units in the army just forget they can shrug off damage like that?

Yup, they are completely useless without being reminded of stuff they know/are capable of doing.

But I'd kill all faction specific ones and anything that used to be wargear/on dataslate goes back to normal.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Marines have 48 bolt weapons. 52 if you count combi-grav/plas/melta/flamer. And that's ignoring Relics.

My favorite fact about the current Boltercount is that 52 is (or was, last 'dex) the number of ranged weapons in the tau dex.

Semper wrote:
Meh, give me back the indexes and early 8th.

the game you want is called One Page Rules

I still vote for a 4th edition resurgence. Try it sometime - actually play a game. It will blow your minds :p

just got a game of the old Kill Team from the back of the rulebook some time ago

my interest in the modern one was gone, even the new models do not hold up to the conversions based on the old plastic models shown there

but in general my hopes are on the FireFight rules from Mantic, Beta looked promising, just needs and "Uncharted" book for 40k refugees armies

if not, I will bite the bullet, sell the 40k stuff that is saleable and get Star Wars Legion

(as I never was a big fan of 8th, so also the OPR rules are not my cup of tee, for the same reasons)

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Here's what i would do:


-Remove Stratagems

Stratagems are fine, it's the straight up attack/defense ones with no prerequisites that need to go. One Primaris unit going Transhuman just doesn't make sense. Did the other units in the army just forget they can shrug off damage like that?

I disagree, they just add way too many rules to remember for each army. If they truly *must* stay, i'd say have them tied to characters and chosen at the start of the turn (like AoS does)

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Here's what i would do:


-Remove Stratagems

Stratagems are fine, it's the straight up attack/defense ones with no prerequisites that need to go. One Primaris unit going Transhuman just doesn't make sense. Did the other units in the army just forget they can shrug off damage like that?

I disagree, they just add way too many rules to remember for each army. If they truly *must* stay, i'd say have them tied to characters and chosen at the start of the turn (like AoS does)

If only AoS chose them at the start of the turn. Much as I like the game, the fact that Command Abilities happen outside of the Hero Phase 90% of the time annoys me to no end.

Pacific wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, I like a well-balanced game. I like a game where player skill at the table is the main determinant of victory and defeat. 40k... Is not that. And will probably never be that. GW just doesn't care enough to make a balanced game.

But! I also like customization. I like being able to tweak and modify models and lists and all that. And GW used to be good about that. Nowadays... Not so much.

Look at Dark Eldar. Stonkingly powerful! Really flipping boring.

I feel like, if GW isn't going to do more than cursory balance, they should at least make it so you can customize the ever-loving hell out of your guys. But that's going away, and it sucks.

Agree? Disagree? Am I a moron, or do you feel similarly?

I would ask you - what is it that makes you want to play 40k?

In my case it was the imagery and miniatures, but I played the game despite the rules. Eventually I got sick of the cycle of 6 months to create an army > play three games, remember why you stopped playing it before > gap then 6 months to create a new army and repeat.

If it's the miniatures, you can find lots of online groups now with older editions of the game being played which might be more to your taste.
The Horus Heresy ruleset is more or less an 'official' extension of 7th edition. A lot of people say that had its own problems, but nonetheless it's an alternative to current editions, and has a great community.

If it's the imagery and background that pulls you in, have you considered Adeptus Titanicus or Epic? The former is still officially supported, and for the latter there is a sizeable social media community, and depending on where you live it shouldn't be too hard to find players.

I do think though that it's almost like a lot of people are 'trapped' into only playing modern 40k. It's like only playing a CD you don't really like, or a video game that you've completed but just come back to because of familiarity. There is so much more out there, certainly a lot more better crafted (even within 40k's own history and GW's alternate games), it can be the hardest thing to do but making that jump to a new games system can really revitalise your interest in wargaming.

Lore and setting, i play many different game systems that have great rules. the story (well before cadia fell) was the thing that keeps my interest in the setting.

thus, the reason to go back to older editions

auticus wrote:

I do think though that it's almost like a lot of people are 'trapped' into only playing modern 40k.

A lot of that is because (in my experience) vast swathes of this community will only play what is active and "living" and anything past or dead is left behind.

Finding people to play older editions is insanely difficult (in my experience). I know it can be done but the effort you have to spend to find such a game is often more than most people are willing to endure.

Especially since the main draw of 40k (in my experience) for most people is that you can find a game anywhere on the planet at any time and that your monetary investment into the game is almost 100% secure.

If you had to put energy into drumming up a community for 40k like almost every other game, I seriously doubt it'd be where it is today. Most places (all places I've been to) there is and has been a thriving 40k community already prebuilt. No other game can say that. And older editions share that same issue because you have to find someone willing to invest in older editions where their investment is not so safe, and they may own models that they can never (or rarely) use (like most other games out there).

Indeed. i have been lucky with a regular group of veterans who play 5th ed at my FLGS who have been playing the game regularly since 3rd ed. and we have managed to teach new players the older system and they love it. we also don't give a GAK about proxies. i currently own hard copies and bring with me every good codex from 3rd-7th (including chapter approved and index astartes) minus dark eldar '5th' (that is my next purchase), GSC (7th), demons (4th), custodes (7th) and deathwatch(7th) many of which i have PDF copies of. so, whoever comes in to play we can build them a 5th ed compatible army quite easily.

kodos wrote:just got a game of the old Kill Team from the back of the rulebook some time ago

my interest in the modern one was gone, even the new models do not hold up to the conversions based on the old plastic models shown there

but in general my hopes are on the FireFight rules from Mantic, Beta looked promising, just needs and "Uncharted" book for 40k refugees armies

if not, I will bite the bullet, sell the 40k stuff that is saleable and get Star Wars Legion

(as I never was a big fan of 8th, so also the OPR rules are not my cup of tee, for the same reasons)

Index 8th was way too simple for a 28mm squad based tactical war game. where it shines is in epic scale (halving all ranges for movement/shooting) where the number of units you have on the table justify the simple rules for army building, movement, terrain and shooting. especially when there are only 3 strats (the same ones) for every army. it adds a bit more flavor than old epic rules but still plays fast where i can throw down an effective 10K point army and get a full game in in about 2 hours.

Honestly I'm pretty sure that anyone who says stratagems are good either never played anything before 8th and just assume all the flak about USR is true, or is being willfully ignorant.

Stratagems are USR but some how made 10x worse.
USR you could find 90% of them in the BRB, the other 10% in the codexs or which most were never even in play.

Now with stratagems there are WAY more gottem special rules because now I have to know what stars my oponanta army has, then what units in his list can be effects by those stats, which are only avalibe In that army codex then I have to know which subfaction he is and what stats that gives him access to.

Stratagems are basically the worst thing to come from 8th because it also took away from units what made them unique. Look at harliquins, all their unique weapons are now just crappy strats

Stratagems and USRs are good, just not GWs version of it

But this is always the case with GW copying rules from other games, no matter if USRs, Stratagems or movement tools, they don't understand why they are used in the first place and just hence they cannot implement those in a useful way

The idea of stratagems are fine, but done horribly, strats should be 100% generic and everyone has access to the same ones. All the specific ones should be baked into the unit to some capacity.

I wouldn't remove strats.

I'd just reduce the army specific ones by about 2/3rds or 3/4ths, and then outside of the 'Core' ones, you'd get to pick an amount of strats based on the game size (Patrol, Onslaught, etc.).

And obviously no equipment-based strats, 'cause those are beyond stupid.

I love when people helpfully demonstrate in real time why most people stick with the Cult of Officialdom.

...it's because everyones got their own idea of what 'the ideal version' of 40k would be, and everyone else thinks that that person's idea is terrible and removes the True Essence of True 40k, which resides in their brain.

most people would rather both be playing a game that they both think is bad and have a shared absent entity to blame for it, than be playing a game they think is bad and the person opposite them thinks is good and theyre the only one to blame for it.

 the_scotsman wrote:
most people would rather both be playing a game that they both think is bad and have a shared absent entity to blame for it, than be playing a game they think is bad and the person opposite them thinks is good and theyre the only one to blame for it.

This would be an interesting psychology dissertation ( for real ).

I'd be fine with a rule of 1 attack/defense strategem per player turn (one on your turn, one on your opponent's).

Then again, this is coming from a Guard player...

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Here's what i would do:


-Remove Stratagems

Stratagems are fine, it's the straight up attack/defense ones with no prerequisites that need to go. One Primaris unit going Transhuman just doesn't make sense. Did the other units in the army just forget they can shrug off damage like that?

I disagree, they just add way too many rules to remember for each army. If they truly *must* stay, i'd say have them tied to characters and chosen at the start of the turn (like AoS does)

Oh I wouldn't mind more of them being more character driven. Like something for Marine HQs to give a True Grit aura for a turn instead of the silly "One Space Wolves unit remembered they can shoot in melee".

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Honestly I'm pretty sure that anyone who says stratagems are good either never played anything before 8th and just assume all the flak about USR is true, or is being willfully ignorant.

I used to think the opposite.

Anyone who talks about "needing to memorize every strat in their dex" sounds to me like someone who hasn't played the game, because that's not how it's done. Literally everyone I've ever talked to IRL shortlists to ten in their heads if not using actual cards (which is what I do).

Some people's short list is 7, some is 12. People who play the same army don't always have the same short list- sometimes it's because they include different units, sometimes it's because they play a different subfaction, and sometimes it's just personal preference.

It's funny, because I've seen people suggest making it a formal rule ie: pick five strats before the first turn; those plus core BRB strats are all you get. And I'm thinkin: doesn't everyone kinda do this anyway? Like I said, the size of the short list varies from player to player, but literally everyone I've talked to in real life does it.

If you've got ten or more games under your belt, there's probably one or two strats that you've used in every game you've played. There's probably five others that you've used often enough that you can run them from memory. And honestly, that's a pretty full suite. I tend to have more, because I use cards.

 auticus wrote:

I do think though that it's almost like a lot of people are 'trapped' into only playing modern 40k.

A lot of that is because (in my experience) vast swathes of this community will only play what is active and "living" and anything past or dead is left behind.

Finding people to play older editions is insanely difficult (in my experience). I know it can be done but the effort you have to spend to find such a game is often more than most people are willing to endure.

Especially since the main draw of 40k (in my experience) for most people is that you can find a game anywhere on the planet at any time and that your monetary investment into the game is almost 100% secure.

If you had to put energy into drumming up a community for 40k like almost every other game, I seriously doubt it'd be where it is today. Most places (all places I've been to) there is and has been a thriving 40k community already prebuilt. No other game can say that. And older editions share that same issue because you have to find someone willing to invest in older editions where their investment is not so safe, and they may own models that they can never (or rarely) use (like most other games out there).

Also, even for people who think older editions of 40k are better than current editions (which may or may not be true) they're still GW games. They're not well balanced, they don't work that well as pickup games, they're terrible as tournament games. Even 5th edition, which is often touted here as the best tournament edition, still requires that you have a gentlemanly agreement to not play grey knights or a couple of different Space Wolf/Guard lists.

Many games have been released in the past 30 years that are just better to play than any edition of 40k is. If you're already giving up active support and pre-existing community, why would you continue to play 40k at all? You're already picking up a dead game, why not pick up a GOOD dead game?

My issue with strats is this.
Unlike USR which I could find the VAST majority of in the BrB, strats are littered throughout multiple books and codexes and FAQs.

I don't mind complicated or even memorizing a lot of rules, when they are localized and accessable. Strats are not that, strats are all over the place and require even more knowledge of other people's army.

Like I said before let's take relentless, like it someone had a USR that lets just say is "will of the necrons" or what ever I just made this up and it convays relentless to all troops in the army. That's fine I know what relentless is, I have relentless on my bikes, I understand this, every other person that does not use "will or the necrons" understands this.

8th or 9th would take that same rule, make it a strat then say, "all necron units that are troops in your army my move and shoot with our penalty". Now I don't know what this strat is, I don't know it exists if someone where to tell me they use this I would have no idea unless I specificallt had that codex to read this strat. This bonus is not listen anywhere outside of it.

This is a simple watered down example. But this is what I hate about strats they just reword existing rules, because, flavor? Then just act as a way to blind side anyone that does not know about it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also that strats take out things that units should just have baked in.

PenitentJake wrote:
And I'm thinkin: doesn't everyone kinda do this anyway

I think the benefit is then I know all my opponent's available strats and can plan around them.

 the_scotsman wrote:
I love when people helpfully demonstrate in real time why most people stick with the Cult of Officialdom.

...it's because everyones got their own idea of what 'the ideal version' of 40k would be, and everyone else thinks that that person's idea is terrible and removes the True Essence of True 40k, which resides in their brain.

most people would rather both be playing a game that they both think is bad and have a shared absent entity to blame for it, than be playing a game they think is bad and the person opposite them thinks is good and theyre the only one to blame for it.

Most people would be playing a game they both think is good. I would think that's pretty obvious.

The rest is A. only true of friends and B. solves itself. In a pickup game, it's not your responsibility to make sure your opponent likes 40k. That's their burden to bear. All you have to do is not be an a-hole in that one particular game.

And B. If you and friend are playing a game one of you likes and the other one doesn't, in real life, you just don't play that game together anymore. My friend hates 40k, loves Marvel Crisis Protocol, so we play that. If 40k was the only reason you were friends, you weren't really friends.

As an attempt to sound profound, it's a bit silly.

 the_scotsman wrote:
I love when people helpfully demonstrate in real time why most people stick with the Cult of Officialdom.

...it's because everyones got their own idea of what 'the ideal version' of 40k would be, and everyone else thinks that that person's idea is terrible and removes the True Essence of True 40k, which resides in their brain.

most people would rather both be playing a game that they both think is bad and have a shared absent entity to blame for it, than be playing a game they think is bad and the person opposite them thinks is good and theyre the only one to blame for it.

Absolutely nailed it.

I am just enjoy playing 40K and do not fancy myself as a game designer. Game is not perfect. Lots of perfect games in the 50% clearance bin at the FLGS.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Honestly I'm pretty sure that anyone who says stratagems are good either never played anything before 8th and just assume all the flak about USR is true, or is being willfully ignorant.

Stratagems are USR but some how made 10x worse.
USR you could find 90% of them in the BRB, the other 10% in the codexs or which most were never even in play.

Now with stratagems there are WAY more gottem special rules because now I have to know what stars my oponanta army has, then what units in his list can be effects by those stats, which are only avalibe In that army codex then I have to know which subfaction he is and what stats that gives him access to.

Stratagems are basically the worst thing to come from 8th because it also took away from units what made them unique. Look at harliquins, all their unique weapons are now just crappy strats

So someone who disagrees with you is either a noob or ignorant? OK. Got it.

I've been playing 40K since 2nd Ed. I like Stratagems and I am just fine operating without USRs. These past two editions have had the cleanest gameplay experience for me. Very rarely do I have to head to the rulebook. This stands in contrast to previous editions of 40K (I did step out for 7th) and to my Flames of War experience where each game is an exercise in French Code Civile arguments.

No, they might not be either, I just personally think that like strats as they are now either is being over dramatic about USR being bad, or never played anything other then with strats.

Not a noob, ignorant perhaps but being ignorant is not bad or insulting.

I'm a casual player so perhaps my opinion is meaningless. But I really want to like 40k and I just don't. The basic rules for 9th are fine, they were (outside of some strange wording) easy to pick up. But then I picked up a codex and there is just so many extra rules and interactions to remember, I just don't know why anyone bothers.

I'd much rather play without strategems, without chapter tactics, without anything that isn't on the dang data slate. There's so much flipping back and forth during a game now to find rules and special abilities and relics. And then you have to worry about FAQs and expansion books, and Erratas.

But the worst of it is that strategems just feel like "gotchas" and "feels bad moments". I look at a unit, and I can look it up in battlescribe or glance at the datasheet in his codex and ok, I know what it does. but then he pulls out some wacky combo of strategems and it does something completely different. And I'm always worried I'm forgetting some strategem that I need to use to work, and I have to flipping take notes to keep track of what i should be doing with my units.

I just want to play a game of toy soldiers, and have fun for a couple hours. Maybe 40k just isn't for me anymore. At least kill team doesn't have so MUCH complexity.

And I don't mind the idea of giving strats the USR treatment BTW; I've said it be for, if you want to give the same name to every identical rule, and you want to put them in the BRB, fine.

But I HATED the way they executed USR's in previous editions. I'd prefer they continue to put every USR an army can use into its dex. You want'em in the BRB? Fine, won't object. But when I buy a dex, I want the text of rule it contains to be in the damn book.

And NO USR should ever just be a combination of two different USRs. I'd rather they made a third USR that contained the text for the two USRs it combined- cross referencing SUCKED.

But given these two modifications to the way they worked in previous editions, I'd support a return of USRs.

I think we talked about this in the last thread. For the bad rap that USRs get, it was pretty much agreed on (unlike the thread before that) that ultimately the real issues everyone had, once we hashed it out, wasn't with USRs, but how GW bungled them from the word go (like the USR that gives two USRs).