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.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
I get the old system was not the best, but its miles better then what it is now, because it worked and did not cause the multitude of problems we have now.

I have so many things to comment on....so many posts while i was away at work.

As somebody who still regularly plays 5th ed core rules with a few house rules (imported from other editions-nothing homemade) i am not going to go back and address every single reply directly but i will hit a few high points.

1. yes, it is a mess now because it is an arms race between damage and model survival. troopers have become harder and harder to kill (t5 2 or 3 wounds base etc..) to counter the fact the weapons have more and more damaged reduction and multiple damage dealing. As a side effect medium class high volume weapon that one would use on infantry are even better at killing vehicles. making dedicated AT weapons like a las cannon loose it's reason to exist.

The old AP system works just fine specifically for narrative reasons because it provides immersion. as somebody noted previously a marine gets a 5+ save against a krak missle in 9th but nothing in 3rd-7th ed. It makes sense because even though marines are literally walking tanks in the lore you are firing a dedicated heavy anti-tank weapon at them. It is supposed to negate the armor as it was designed to do. The fact the game focused more on the tactical decisions you made in the actual game not just on list building (or gotcha card combos ala 9th) This is even more apparent with a properly terrain filled table allowing players to make use of maneuver to maximize hard cover or blocking LOS terrain.

Having more than 1 wound was a super HUGE thing in previous editions. the game had a lot less shots (incidentally adding in snap fire and overwatch are not that game breaking given this point which is why we added them into our 5th ed games). so characters with 2-4 wound, or some special infantry like obliterators having 2 wounds (with the aditional T5) could still be worn down by weight of numbers (My deathwing army fell mostly to massed las gun fire against imperial guard) but the threat of heavy AT weapons were a factor in the decisions you made in the battle.

It is the same with vehicles. immersivity damaging a vehicle (and armor facings) makes sense as you blow off pieces or knock the crew around. conversely because it is a vehicle it also made immersive sense that you could blow it up with a lucky hit. much of the debate about vehicle survival VS stun lock that began with the horribly design hull point system in 6th was easily fixed by adding in the snap fire mechanic. so even stunned vehicles can at least contribute, granted far less effectively, to the game while stunned/shaken (so long as they are not using blast/ordinance weapons since they cannot snap fire).

There was and always will be the WAAC minded tourney players who go to the things like AP 2 CCW in the previous edition instead of swords that were AP3, but for the narrative minded players who care about the lore, there are options. my dark angels would never use anything but a power sword for non-terminator equipped units because that is not the way they would fight in the setting.

Yes 9th is a very sterile setup with effectively identical battles for ease of pickup and tournament play, and some players desire that which is fine. but it is not "fun" to many of us in the way that older editions allowed players to build and play (and get rewarded for) the forces as they should according to the lore. pretty much every player who has only played 8th ed+ who we have taught to play 5th has had a great time. As long as they are having fun, it is the entire point of the exercise.

When we play our games i will gladly fight any army anybody puts on the table because even if it is a hard fight i know that i have a chance for a fun game and a win no matter what i am up against given the rule set and how scoring is done- to give you an idea here are a few of the regular lists that see some variation of play on the table at our FLGS every weekend when we are not playing non GW games-

.khorne berserkers 3.5 codex
.iron warriors 3.5 codex
.orks 4th ed codex
.tau 4th ed codex
.dark eldar 5th ed codex
.blood angels 5th ed codex
.imperial guard armored company-3rd ed chapter approved.
.imperial guard 5th ed codex
.crimson fists-5th ed codex
.black templar-4th ed codex
.necrons 5th ed codex

etc.....

ccs wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

Except that AP 2 weapons were just as good at killing sv 3.

You say this like its a bad thing....

AP2 dominance over Sv3+ was a feature, not a bug. Same with AP5 dominating Sv5+.

The only correct interpretation of any "problem" here is that players failed to properly use cover against weapons that would negate saves, failed to screen with disposable units, failed to concentrate fire/lock/neuter dangerous enemy units, and/or failed to play objectives vs kills. For most MEQs, 'free" Power Armor was a crutch that they relied on excessively against basic weapons and basic attacks, and failed to adapt as the meta evolved to incorporate stronger anti-MEQ tactics and builds. Instead, they just kept charging forward like lambs to the slaughter, and then complained when the obviously effective weapons were actually effective. In short, most players, esp. MEQ players sucked. MEQs whining about AP2 being "too strong" simply needed to "git gud."

Not that any of it mattered outside of a paid tournament context with prizes on the line.

OTOH, if you were just playing to shoot the gak while chatting with your friends, whatever AP system is in place makes no difference whatsoever relative the importance of just playing a game.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 aphyon wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
I get the old system was not the best, but its miles better then what it is now, because it worked and did not cause the multitude of problems we have now.

The old AP system works just fine specifically for narrative reasons because it provides immersion.

here are a few of the regular lists that see some variation of play on the table at our FLGS every weekend when we are not playing non GW games-
.iron warriors 3.5 codex
.orks 4th ed codex
.imperial guard armored company-3rd ed chapter approved.

The 3E AP system works great because it speeds the game by removing die rolls. It's to-hit & to-wound, pick up models, rather than the much slower & more tedious 'hit, wound, save, allocate, & pick' process. 3E was specifically designed to accelerate the leaden and plodding gameplay of 2E by removing rolls and simplifying mechanics.

The way 9E has gone, we might as well go back to the 2E Warp Spider rules, which had 2 full pages of rules covering how their Death Spinners worked [go ahead and click the links]. I'd kind of like that, simply to fething bury the opponent in mechanics such that they never get past the first couple turns. 9th Edition needs things like Virus Grenades and pre-game bombardment where you can potentially delete an army before the game even starts. Also, a counter phase where we randomly move On Fire models and Vortex Grenades to see what happens with them. At this point, why the feth not, right? In for a penny, in for a pound. /rant

Of the listed armies, there are only 3 that are potentially dangerous, of which the Orks might be the most dangerous of all!

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
and hosting narrative events as part of the events they run.

They do. The Championships they hosted in Grapevine at the Citadel had an attached Narrative event. They even mentioned it in the WHC article about the event(as well as the 40K vs AoS game that was played there).

Forgive me for sounding like a nob or a bell end here but

A single narrative event at a single GW shop thats sandwiched between a good year tire and a family wine shop does not say much for the support GW provides to narrative campaigns.

When you have companies like pizao that can run multi party pathfinder society events all at the same time which effect each others party, yet GW can only throw the most barest of narrative bones our way, i dont see that as being a win.

GW has always run narrative events, mostly in Nottingham. Their new partnership with ITC will actually improve that since nearly every single ITC open event has narrative events(which most people forget because they're also "footnotes" in comparison to the main tournament) and there's a confirmed Narrative Council for the partnership. It's the only good thing to come from the partnership.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
and hosting narrative events as part of the events they run.

They do. The Championships they hosted in Grapevine at the Citadel had an attached Narrative event. They even mentioned it in the WHC article about the event(as well as the 40K vs AoS game that was played there).

Forgive me for sounding like a nob or a bell end here but

A single narrative event at a single GW shop thats sandwiched between a good year tire and a family wine shop does not say much for the support GW provides to narrative campaigns.

When you have companies like pizao that can run multi party pathfinder society events all at the same time which effect each others party, yet GW can only throw the most barest of narrative bones our way, i dont see that as being a win.

GW has always run narrative events, mostly in Nottingham. Their new partnership with ITC will actually improve that since nearly every single ITC open event has narrative events(which most people forget because they're also "footnotes" in comparison to the main tournament) and there's a confirmed Narrative Council for the partnership. It's the only good thing to come from the partnership.

Well color me surprised. Now we just need GW giving those kinds of events more press.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
I get the old system was not the best, but its miles better then what it is now, because it worked and did not cause the multitude of problems we have now.

Out of curiosity, what do you mean by "the moltitude of problems we have now" in terms of system? Because I can't find a single one that is directly related to the system. Maybe related to how it is implemented, like easy access to AP-1 or easy access to cumulative AP bonus, not to the system itself.

In the old system, which also had very different wounds values, power armour dudes and (even more) Terminators were extremely vulnerable to lasguns, now they can tank tons of those crappy shots. As they should. Same with vehicles: now weapons, even powerful but still common ones like meltas don't instant kill anything. But also single heavy bolter or autocannon shots don't instant kill anything, finally giving light vehicles a purpose beyond spamming them.

 Platuan4th wrote:
there's a confirmed Narrative Council for the partnership

If they don't wear the licensed bathrobes while in meetings I will be filing an official protest.

 Blackie wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
I get the old system was not the best, but its miles better then what it is now, because it worked and did not cause the multitude of problems we have now.

Out of curiosity, what do you mean by "the moltitude of problems we have now" in terms of system? Because I can't find a single one that is directly related to the system. Maybe related to how it is implemented, like easy access to AP-1 or easy access to cumulative AP bonus, not to the system itself.

I agree. I feel like the old AP system's problems were fundamental to that system. The problems we have now with AP proliferation are more to do with the implementation. I think you could fix a lot of problems by resetting the baseline AP for everything in the game by just worsening every AP value by 1. The number of basic weapons that now have AP-1 is ridiculous. I'd also remove any strat or army-wide rule that improves AP.

Slipspace wrote:
I'd also remove any strat or army-wide rule that improves AP.

I think army-wide rules should be dealt with, sure. But with strats, at least they are restricted to use by one unit per turn, which under most circumstances shouldn't break the game.

 Blackie wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
I get the old system was not the best, but its miles better then what it is now, because it worked and did not cause the multitude of problems we have now.

Out of curiosity, what do you mean by "the moltitude of problems we have now" in terms of system? Because I can't find a single one that is directly related to the system. Maybe related to how it is implemented, like easy access to AP-1 or easy access to cumulative AP bonus, not to the system itself.

In the old system, which also had very different wounds values, power armour dudes and (even more) Terminators were extremely vulnerable to lasguns, now they can tank tons of those crappy shots. As they should. Same with vehicles: now weapons, even powerful but still common ones like meltas don't instant kill anything. But also single heavy bolter or autocannon shots don't instant kill anything, finally giving light vehicles a purpose beyond spamming them.

Not who you are responding too, but I'll bite...

With the abundance of -1 and -2 AP thrown around coupled with higher volume shooting at that AP, it's very often the case that marines are subject to a reduced armor save. The sense is that marines are failing armor saves more often than in the old system. Granted, AP1-3 weapons negated marines saves entirely before, but those weapons were relatively less common and were significant battle field threats to play around - rather than just being standard fare.

So, the thinking goes that under the newer modifier system, marines were hence dying too quickly, and that was one reason they were bumped to 2W.

The other thing is that people shouldn't isolate the AP and Armor Save interaction from the older cover save system. Sure, marines couldn't stand there a take a battle cannon or a krak missile in the face (and honestly, why should they be able to?). But get behind hard cover and they still get a 4+ cover save. Yes, marines had to use cover too. There were places and situations where you if you controlled the threats you could push across the open with relative impunity since you'd get your full armor save. But other times, and against certain armies (star cannon spam) you absolutely need to use cover.

The cover system in 9th is not as impactful as it was in prior editions, and when combined with AP using modifiers, it's led to an escalation of lethality.

Regarding AP2 and terminators - yes, mass fire was generally the answer to 2+ save units - and IMHO terminators were usually over-costed considering this weak point. You had to be judicious with where you deployed terminators to avoid mass light arms fire - which is ironic because that's what they should excel at dealing with. Then again, they had a 2+ save which is pretty damn good and you get it most of the time.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Having said all of this, the change ProHammer made to the AP system, and other homebrew rules have done the same, is that if the AP = Sv, then you take your save at a -1 instead of having it ignored outright. This helps Marines deal with starcannon spam, terminators deal with plasma spam, and everyone else sporting 4+ or 5+ saves to often get something still, even if just a 6+. And those saves can add up.

 Mezmorki wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
I get the old system was not the best, but its miles better then what it is now, because it worked and did not cause the multitude of problems we have now.

Out of curiosity, what do you mean by "the moltitude of problems we have now" in terms of system? Because I can't find a single one that is directly related to the system. Maybe related to how it is implemented, like easy access to AP-1 or easy access to cumulative AP bonus, not to the system itself.

In the old system, which also had very different wounds values, power armour dudes and (even more) Terminators were extremely vulnerable to lasguns, now they can tank tons of those crappy shots. As they should. Same with vehicles: now weapons, even powerful but still common ones like meltas don't instant kill anything. But also single heavy bolter or autocannon shots don't instant kill anything, finally giving light vehicles a purpose beyond spamming them.

Not who you are responding too, but I'll bite...

With the abundance of -1 and -2 AP thrown around coupled with higher volume shooting at that AP, it's very often the case that marines are subject to a reduced armor save. The sense is that marines are failing armor saves more often than in the old system. Granted, AP1-3 weapons negated marines saves entirely before, but those weapons were relatively less common and were significant battle field threats to play around - rather than just being standard fare.

So, the thinking goes that under the newer modifier system, marines were hence dying too quickly, and that was one reason they were bumped to 2W.

The other thing is that people shouldn't isolate the AP and Armor Save interaction from the older cover save system. Sure, marines couldn't stand there a take a battle cannon or a krak missile in the face (and honestly, why should they be able to?). But get behind hard cover and they still get a 4+ cover save. Yes, marines had to use cover too. There were places and situations where you if you controlled the threats you could push across the open with relative impunity since you'd get your full armor save. But other times, and against certain armies (star cannon spam) you absolutely need to use cover.

The cover system in 9th is not as impactful as it was in prior editions, and when combined with AP using modifiers, it's led to an escalation of lethality.

Regarding AP2 and terminators - yes, mass fire was generally the answer to 2+ save units - and IMHO terminators were usually over-costed considering this weak point. You had to be judicious with where you deployed terminators to avoid mass light arms fire - which is ironic because that's what they should excel at dealing with. Then again, they had a 2+ save which is pretty damn good and you get it most of the time.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Having said all of this, the change ProHammer made to the AP system, and other homebrew rules have done the same, is that if the AP = Sv, then you take your save at a -1 instead of having it ignored outright. This helps Marines deal with starcannon spam, terminators deal with plasma spam, and everyone else sporting 4+ or 5+ saves to often get something still, even if just a 6+. And those saves can add up.

More or less this, the AP system using the rending style has caused a domino effect of problems
Because rending AP effects everyone, things died to quickly which is the main reason everything started getting 2 wounds
But because everything started having 2 wounds, all of sudden things were not killy enough, so we started to see multi damage weapons all over the palce
Then that go to far on the other end, then we started getting invulns on everything along with rules like "Can only be wounded on a 4+"
Well that made big guns really crappy, so now we are seeing them with rules and abilities that just outright bypass invuln saves.

And im telling you, we are going to see sooner rather then later rules where some units ignore ap of 1 and 2, or reduce the AP of weapons, or saves taht are even better then invuln saves.

And on that, i agree, i think the prohammer system using the impact hits where AP = save is just your save -1 is a far better system, mostly helping out the SV 4 and SV 5 armies

 Backspacehacker wrote:

40k now has, imo, never been more boring to play, because they have standardized the game so much that basically anywhere i go, its the same match, the same table, the same ITC terrain, everything, 40k has been horribly sanitized and sterilized that every game feel like you are playing in a clean room, and its just a match to get ready for the next tournament.
Any more a game of 40k to me feels like a game of MTG, most of the time is spent on list building and making your deck/army, when you get to the table, you are mostly just there for the ride.

I think this is quite similar to how I've been feeling recently.

In theory, 9th offers more diversity and army-customisation than any other edition. You've got more special rules for your factions, you've got extra special rules to differentiate between loyal factions and ones making use of allies, you've got different subfactions with different bonuses, and there are no USRs so every single unit has bespoke rules . . .

. . . and yet armies feel more samey than in editions without any of those things.

I think there's a severe issue with the reprinting of mechanics - not just former-USRs like deep strike but stuff like rerolling 1s, inflicting Mortal wounds on 6s etc..

This really isn't helped by the bespoke aspect. So rather than having a bunch of USRs and using bespoke rules only for particularly unusual mechanics, you instead have these fluffy, evocative names for stale, uninspired mechanics:

Supreme Swordsman - When attacking, this model rerolls 1s to hit.

Unparalleled Accuracy - When attacking, this model rerolls 1s to hit.

Master Tactician - When attacking, this model rerolls 1s to hit.

Supreme Grand Champion of the Emperor's Might - When attacking, this model rerolls 1s to hit.

WIELDER OF THE DAEMON SWORD GODKILLER, WHOSE EVERY SWING CAN CLEAVE A WORLD IN TWAIN! - When attacking, this model rerolls 1s to hit.

And thats another issue im having.
GW is just recycling the same damn rule with the same name.

This is why, imo factual at this point, that the current rules are 10x worse then USR of the past, and people who say other wise are just makeing them out to be far worse then they really were.

Rerolling 1s when attacking just would have been a singel special rule that would have been known across the whole game, now here is the same rule with 10 different names you need to explain every time you use it on someone that has never seen it.

40k now is just so....souless.

This whole debate of old vs new AP system and their flaws/merits very nicely shows fundamentally different and sometimes opposite experience narrative/casual and competitive players have.

In competitive 7th ed context S6 AP2 or high ROF S6 were spammed all around, so in the experience of Marine players, their boys had no save more often than not, so the new system is better.

In narrative context, S6 and AP2 weapons were relatively few and far apart, so Marines got their saves more often than not, so the new system with the abundance of AP-1 or better, is worse.

As to ProHammer version - for about a 100 games of 7th my group used the same solution, but with AP=Sv resulting in -2 modifier instead of -1 (with the exception of 5+ turning to 6+). This is as close to halving the save as you can get in a D6 based system and it worked extremely well. It also has an added bonus of the room for built in secondary Inv saves equal to -1 mod, which are useless in ProHammer.

I actually like the new AP system natratively because it feels like it's reflecting how armour penetration actually works in real.life (well other than oa system where everytime you pass a save you worsen your armour aave to represent the protective material taking damage and brcoming easier to penetrate) rather than an on and off switch.

nou wrote:
This whole debate of old vs new AP system and their flaws/merits very nicely shows fundamentally different and sometimes opposite experience narrative/casual and competitive players have.

In competitive 7th ed context S6 AP2 or high ROF S6 were spammed all around, so in the experience of Marine players, their boys had no save more often than not, so the new system is better.

In narrative context, S6 and AP2 weapons were relatively few and far apart, so Marines got their saves more often than not, so the new system with the abundance of AP-1 or better, is worse.

Why does narrative context matter though? Some fluffbunny not giving their Windriders ANY heavy weapons doesn't change the fact they had access to one each. Fundamental problems are fundamental problems, even if the fluffbunny suddenly made that squad to show how cool and experienced THOSE Windriders were.

I like the current AP system more than the old one. No idea if this is a competitive, narrative or whatever reference. Deep down I think its 3rd edition feelings of envy that Marine players suddenly had a 3+ ward save versus anything lighter than a lascannon. While their bolters readily turned my guardians and gaunts into a fine mist.

Unfortunately I don't like GW handing out AP for free on everything just because they have to push codex creep at every opportunity. But tbh, that's what happened under the old system too.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

nou wrote:
This whole debate of old vs new AP system and their flaws/merits very nicely shows fundamentally different and sometimes opposite experience narrative/casual and competitive players have.

In competitive 7th ed context S6 AP2 or high ROF S6 were spammed all around, so in the experience of Marine players, their boys had no save more often than not, so the new system is better.

In narrative context, S6 and AP2 weapons were relatively few and far apart, so Marines got their saves more often than not, so the new system with the abundance of AP-1 or better, is worse.

Why does narrative context matter though? Some fluffbunny not giving their Windriders ANY heavy weapons doesn't change the fact they had access to one each. Fundamental problems are fundamental problems, even if the fluffbunny suddenly made that squad to show how cool and experienced THOSE Windriders were.

Because thats what this entire thread is about, thats why it matters.
Because 40k now is nothing like it was for the past editions since about 3rd all the way through 7th.
Hence the topic of what 40k should be vs what is.

With regard to the AP system, I don't think it's inherently worse than the old one but rather its issues stem from a combination of other factors. e.g.:

1) Mishandling of saves. For this AP system to work, there needed to be a good range of saves so that weapons could maintain their niches. Vehicles should have been rocking 2+ or even 1+ saves but instead many had only 4+ or 3+ saves, often supplemented by invulnerable saves. This meant that weapons like Meltas were paying for very high AP that they rarely ever got to make use of - even against the units they're supposedly built to destroy.

2) Misunderstanding the AP system in general. This partially goes back to the above but also relates to other weapons as well. In essence, there has been a tendency for high-AP weapons to be rarer and more expensive than lower-AP weapons. The issue here is that AP gets less valuable the more of it you have. AP-1 is a big difference over AP0 but AP-5 compared to AP-4 or even AP-2 is far less substantial. This becomes even more damning when weapons traded strength and/or damage for AP - there's a reason Power Swords were barely touched in 8th edition (which is ironic, given that this is one of the exact problems the new AP system was supposed to fix ). Anyway, the point here is that a little AP is enough to negate low saves, and to turn reliable saves into unreliable ones. However, higher AP values tend to be wasted because so many models either don't have enough armour or else have an invulnerable save that negates 'excess' AP.

3) No clear direction. The fact that the books aren't written at the same time means the game is left without a guiding philosophy in terms of how much AP is reasonable or what saves units should have. Especially as designers will often try to "fix" current issues with subsequent books, so if, say, Necrons are released early into an edition and it's realised they don't have enough AP, the designers won't bother retroactively trying to fix their book but will instead apply those lessons to the upcoming Eldar book. There's also a general lack of restraint and an apparent reluctance to dial back problematic elements - so an excess of AP is fixed by just adding more wounds everywhere, rather than dialing back AP. An overabundance of invulnerable saves limiting the effectiveness of high-AP weapons is not fixed by considering the role of invulnerable saves and what units really need them but instead just giving newer codices anti-vehicle weapons that ignore invulnerable saves outright.

(Not by any means an exhaustive list but you get the idea.)

 Gert wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:
there's a confirmed Narrative Council for the partnership

If they don't wear the licensed bathrobes while in meetings I will be filing an official protest.

Heh, I was actually wearing mine when I typed that this morning.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Gert wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:
there's a confirmed Narrative Council for the partnership

If they don't wear the licensed bathrobes while in meetings I will be filing an official protest.

Heh, I was actually wearing mine when I typed that this morning.

Based Sigilite bathrobe posting hours.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

nou wrote:
This whole debate of old vs new AP system and their flaws/merits very nicely shows fundamentally different and sometimes opposite experience narrative/casual and competitive players have.

In competitive 7th ed context S6 AP2 or high ROF S6 were spammed all around, so in the experience of Marine players, their boys had no save more often than not, so the new system is better.

In narrative context, S6 and AP2 weapons were relatively few and far apart, so Marines got their saves more often than not, so the new system with the abundance of AP-1 or better, is worse.

Why does narrative context matter though? Some fluffbunny not giving their Windriders ANY heavy weapons doesn't change the fact they had access to one each. Fundamental problems are fundamental problems, even if the fluffbunny suddenly made that squad to show how cool and experienced THOSE Windriders were.

You have it right there in the post… Real life experience of players was so different, because it was not the AP system that had a fundamental flaw, but AP proliferation was the problem, same how it is today. And because those are real people, with their real life experience who are discussing here, you cannot dismiss it simply by throwing „fluffbunny” around with the clear intention of an insult.

The inability or unwillingness to understand the opposite game experience of narrative vs competitive is the root cause for this kind of recurring and unnecessary lengthy discussions. The world is not how many competitive players believe it is, that „what is good for competitive improves the game for everyone” and the whole talk about sterilization of 9th exactly about this issue. At the same time what is best for narrative is often seen as bloat or clunky mechanics (templates, facings, vehicle damage tables, assymetry, etc) by competitives and understandably so.

nou wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

nou wrote:
This whole debate of old vs new AP system and their flaws/merits very nicely shows fundamentally different and sometimes opposite experience narrative/casual and competitive players have.

In competitive 7th ed context S6 AP2 or high ROF S6 were spammed all around, so in the experience of Marine players, their boys had no save more often than not, so the new system is better.

In narrative context, S6 and AP2 weapons were relatively few and far apart, so Marines got their saves more often than not, so the new system with the abundance of AP-1 or better, is worse.

Why does narrative context matter though? Some fluffbunny not giving their Windriders ANY heavy weapons doesn't change the fact they had access to one each. Fundamental problems are fundamental problems, even if the fluffbunny suddenly made that squad to show how cool and experienced THOSE Windriders were.

You have it right there in the post… Real life experience of players was so different, because it was not the AP system that had a fundamental flaw, but AP proliferation was the problem, same how it is today. And because those are real people, with their real life experience who are discussing here, you cannot dismiss it simply by throwing „fluffbunny” around with the clear intention of an insult.

The inability or unwillingness to understand the opposite game experience of narrative vs competitive is the root cause for this kind of recurring and unnecessary lengthy discussions. The world is not how many competitive players believe it is, that „what is good for competitive improves the game for everyone” and the whole talk about sterilization of 9th exactly about this issue. At the same time what is best for narrative is often seen as bloat or clunky mechanics (templates, facings, vehicle damage tables, assymetry, etc) by competitives and understandably so.

ALl of this, which is why we are having the talk of, what should 40k be.

Right now its at its cross roads, of, Does it wanna chase that MTG tournament focused style rules? or does it want to retain its original intent of being a "Dramatic reenactment of battles of the 41st millennia"
Right now it went from the later to the former, and a lot of people that joined because of the later are feeling really really shafted right now because 40k as is, is not why they got into the hobby, and GW is more or less giving them the middle finger.
The only outlets they have, are basically fleeing back to either unsupported editions, which is very hard to maintain because in the eyes of GW and the current competitive scene you are bascially treated like a lepper.
OR go to 30k, which while supported is basically on life support and kept alive only by the fact that BL writers are taking their time with seige of terra, and HH with each passing day is looking more and more likely to be sent to the slaughter house once SoT is finished because GW is trying to move away from that style of grimdark and gore that HH still is.

nou wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

nou wrote:
This whole debate of old vs new AP system and their flaws/merits very nicely shows fundamentally different and sometimes opposite experience narrative/casual and competitive players have.

In competitive 7th ed context S6 AP2 or high ROF S6 were spammed all around, so in the experience of Marine players, their boys had no save more often than not, so the new system is better.

In narrative context, S6 and AP2 weapons were relatively few and far apart, so Marines got their saves more often than not, so the new system with the abundance of AP-1 or better, is worse.

Why does narrative context matter though? Some fluffbunny not giving their Windriders ANY heavy weapons doesn't change the fact they had access to one each. Fundamental problems are fundamental problems, even if the fluffbunny suddenly made that squad to show how cool and experienced THOSE Windriders were.

You have it right there in the post… Real life experience of players was so different, because it was not the AP system that had a fundamental flaw, but AP proliferation was the problem, same how it is today. And because those are real people, with their real life experience who are discussing here, you cannot dismiss it simply by throwing „fluffbunny” around with the clear intention of an insult.

The inability or unwillingness to understand the opposite game experience of narrative vs competitive is the root cause for this kind of recurring and unnecessary lengthy discussions. The world is not how many competitive players believe it is, that „what is good for competitive improves the game for everyone” and the whole talk about sterilization of 9th exactly about this issue. At the same time what is best for narrative is often seen as bloat or clunky mechanics (templates, facings, vehicle damage tables, assymetry, etc) by competitives and understandably so.

Games Workshop is like a government and competitive vs narrative players are like political parties. Enraged forum posters are lobbyists.

 vipoid wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

40k now has, imo, never been more boring to play, because they have standardized the game so much that basically anywhere i go, its the same match, the same table, the same ITC terrain, everything, 40k has been horribly sanitized and sterilized that every game feel like you are playing in a clean room, and its just a match to get ready for the next tournament.
Any more a game of 40k to me feels like a game of MTG, most of the time is spent on list building and making your deck/army, when you get to the table, you are mostly just there for the ride.

I think this is quite similar to how I've been feeling recently.

In theory, 9th offers more diversity and army-customisation than any other edition. You've got more special rules for your factions, you've got extra special rules to differentiate between loyal factions and ones making use of allies, you've got different subfactions with different bonuses, and there are no USRs so every single unit has bespoke rules . . .

. . . and yet armies feel more samey than in editions without any of those things.

Some of what's happening is that we're all getting fire-hosed by a deluge of detail dressed up as fancy bespoke rules, but it's really all the same stuff.

The fast majority of special rules, stratagems, faction traits/doctrines, etc. come down to simply adding re-rolls or modifiers to die rolls. And there are only so many different rolls in the game (to hit, to wound, to save, to charge, to break) and so many ways they can be modified. Every codex is playing around with the wording and nuanced conditions of when these re-rolls and modifiers apply.

Honestly, you could throw all of it in the dumpster and forget it, and the game would probably play out, in relative terms, the same. It would probably be a better game too. It would definitely be faster, have less gotcha moments, and have a lighter mental load (both for play and for list building).

A much higher proportion of older special rules and USR's were not about re-rolls or modifiers (heck 3rd and 4th edition barely had any modifiers in the game period!) and were far more focused around giving units unique asymmetric capabilities. These were often army specific and made different armies feel more thematic and differentiated to play. The vestiges of this is still around, sure, but its been completely dwarfed by the preponderance of re-rolling and die modifiers.

Add to this, that the older editions, with more complexity baked into the core rules, meant that special rules had more hooks / avenues into which they could apply and do something interesting. Now, with the core being so simplified, there are only so many levers you can pull - which is again why it defaults back to the easy way of re-rolls and die modifiers.

artific3r wrote:

Games Workshop is like a government and competitive vs narrative players are like political parties. Enraged forum posters are lobbyists.

We would love to have the same degree of influence lobbyist have

To be honest, I do have an emotional gripe with the narrative mindset because that mindset was used to justify the horrible Tyranid 5th and 6th edition codexes. That is, that Tyranids are narratively the NPC faction and thus had to be weaker so the Space Marines players could get their narrative wins.

At least in a competitive mindset, being fethed over by balance changes feels more like incompetence than the sheer malice of the 5th and 6th books.

EDIT: Like sure, 9th has many deep issues I agree are issues and would love to fix, like morale mechanics (still) being useless, the absurd escalation of AP, Damage and the Toughness ceiling that is T8. And of course a migration to digital rules because we are in the 21th century FFS.

But the narrative mindset that 40k is a "pretzel and beer game" that dominated design during the 3rd to 7th era? that IMHO should stay very fething dead.

And its amazing when you look at HH and the rules they have compared to what we have. Just an example of some of them

Auxilia can get a grave wave generator that reduces charge rolls against them.

Knights can get a pilot that give them out flank, but strips their front AV value by 1

Custodes get bolter rules that if a model takes a wound, they have to take a toughness check or else they take another wound

These are just examples of flavorful rules that dont rely on modifying a die role or reroll and they were interesting and fun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tyran wrote:

artific3r wrote:

Games Workshop is like a government and competitive vs narrative players are like political parties. Enraged forum posters are lobbyists.

We would love to have the same degree of influence lobbyist have

To be honest, I do have an emotional gripe with the narrative mindset because that mindset was used to justify the horrible Tyranid 5th and 6th edition codexes. That is, that Tyranids are narratively the NPC faction and thus had to be weaker so the Space Marines players could get their narrative wins.

At least in a competitive mindset, being fethed over by balance changes feels more like incompetence than the sheer malice of the 5th and 6th books.

EDIT: Like sure, 9th has many deep issues I agree are issues and would love to fix, like morale mechanics (still) being useless, the absurd escalation of AP, damage and the Toughness ceiling that is T8. And of course a migration to digital rules because we are in the 21th century FFS.

But the narrative mindset that 40k is a "pretzel and beer game" that dominated design during the 3rd to 7th era? that IMHO should stay very fething dead.

HOld on, to clarify this, that had nothing to do with narrative players.
Narrative players were upset that nids lost like 18 of their options for war gear.
That was NOT narrative players doing that, that was crappy rules written by rob Cruddace, the milk toast of rule writers. Literally the opposite of matt ward.

Narrative players DONT want it to be a beer and pretzel game, they want the complicated rules that require consulting charts and dealing with damage tables. I would say most narrative players want more in depth rules not less that are more common to beer and pretzel games.
AoS, now thats a beer and pretzel game because of the lack of rule depth to it.

Beer and pretzel games usually means its a simplified game.

 Tyran wrote:

artific3r wrote:

Games Workshop is like a government and competitive vs narrative players are like political parties. Enraged forum posters are lobbyists.

To be honest, I do have an emotional gripe with the narrative mindset because that mindset was used to justify the horrible Tyranid 5th and 6th edition codexes. That is, that Tyranids are narratively the NPC faction and thus had to be weaker so the Space Marines players could get their narrative wins.

[...]
But the narrative mindset that 40k is a "pretzel and beer game" that dominated design during the 3rd to 7th era? that IMHO should stay very fething dead.

That is really a peculiar view on what narrative gaming is... "Beer and pretzels" =/= narrative =/= casual and what is most important, narrative mindset requires no less game knowledge as competitive mindset does. I would even hazard an opinion, that it requires more.

Case in point - my most common matchup (100+ games) during 7th was Tyranids vs Eldar. It took an inside out knowledge of 7th ed and general balance and game design knowledge to ensure close games with such mismatched codices. But in the eyes of a typical competitive player I'm a "beer and pretzels fluffbunny" only because I use the game with a different goal in mind than chasing the meta and winning tournaments.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

Narrative players DONT want it to be a beer and pretzel game, they want the complicated rules that require consulting charts and dealing with damage tables. I would say most narrative players want more in depth rules not less that are more common to beer and pretzel games.
AoS, now thats a beer and pretzel game because of the lack of rule depth to it.

Oh the 5th and 6th Tyranid codexes had tables, tables whose only purpose was to screw over Tyranid players, aka Instinctive Behavior tables.

The best thing the 8th edition Tyranid design team ever did was to take all those charts and simplify them into a rule that we Tyranid players can ignore 99% of the time.

 Tyran wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

Narrative players DONT want it to be a beer and pretzel game, they want the complicated rules that require consulting charts and dealing with damage tables. I would say most narrative players want more in depth rules not less that are more common to beer and pretzel games.
AoS, now thats a beer and pretzel game because of the lack of rule depth to it.

Oh the 5th and 6th Tyranid codexes had tables, tables whose only purpose was to screw over Tyranid players, aka Instinctive Behavior tables.

The best thing the 8th edition Tyranid design team ever did was to take all those charts and simplify them into a rule that we Tyranid players can ignore 99% of the time.

Again, you can blame rob Cruddace for that, that had nothing to do with narrative players.
Rob was the one that gutted their codex and removed a bunch of stuff for nothing other then lol reasons.

It is often confused that narrative gaming is screwing off and banging plastic dollies together making pew pew noises.

Thats part of the conflict right there. In fact thats a major part of the conflict.

I kind of see the current game of both 40k and sigmar as masters of the universe dollies banging together without much if any strategic or tactical depth. Competitive OR narrative.