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.

PenitentJake wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Or you could crib from AoS and bring "Realm Rules" in...

Not going to lie with how varied worlds are in 40k that would be nice. Like imagine rules for high (or low) grav planets, deathworlds, ice worlds, ect.

I'm surprised that those who remember those aspects of the game fondly don't lean more heavily into Theatres of War.

I think its because players want to control how random things are. I loved the randomness of Skaven and 8th Ed Daemons in WHFB but how much randomness is present is based on MY choices rather than just a "wacky stuff happens" table outside of my control (8th Ed Daemons random table of magical silliness not withstanding).

Racerguy180 wrote:
The points costs need to be around 20-30% higher for pretty much everything in the game.

Controversial but there needs to be fewer things on the table.

If you want fewer things on the table, try any of these solutions;
1) play smaller games - less pts = playing with less stuff you know.
2) Build your armies differently. You can make lower to very low count forces.
3) PLAY A DIFFERENT GAME! Games designed for fewer models exist you know. Kill Team comes to mind....

 Sim-Life wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Or you could crib from AoS and bring "Realm Rules" in...

Not going to lie with how varied worlds are in 40k that would be nice. Like imagine rules for high (or low) grav planets, deathworlds, ice worlds, ect.

I'm surprised that those who remember those aspects of the game fondly don't lean more heavily into Theatres of War.

I think its because players want to control how random things are. I loved the randomness of Skaven and 8th Ed Daemons in WHFB but how much randomness is present is based on MY choices rather than just a "wacky stuff happens" table outside of my control (8th Ed Daemons random table of magical silliness not withstanding).

See, I'm aware of the Theaters of War. I like them!

But I've never once seen someone actually play them outside of my little casual club. The reasons you gave about the randomness are why...but also because it messes with the mathhammer.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
What clockwork said.
Points in 9th are way below what points in 3rd was, the games just run the same time because it takes longer to move all those models and deal with all the results, all be it faster now in 9th on a per model bases.
The rules might have gotten simpler but when you have to apply them to 3x the model count, you are jsut exchanging one delay for another.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Racerguy180 wrote:
The points costs need to be around 20-30% higher for pretty much everything in the game.

Controversial but there needs to be fewer things on the table.

But then you just get back to the same issue, people will just make the standard game be a higher point cost until the game length averages out about 3 hours.

Same thing happened in 6th and 7th when a standard game was 1850.

Looking at Space Marines, most units cost more in 9th edition than they did in 3rd edition. As someone stated upthread, Tactical Marines were 15 points each at the start of 3rd Ed. They were 30 points each in 2nd Ed. The shift from 2nd to 3rd was the most dramatic points drop to basically double the model count. I took a real quick look at Astra Militarum: Infantry were 5 points per model at the start of 3rd and a Leman Russ costed a little less than an equivalently equipped tank in 9th.

GTs in 2nd Ed that I was tracking/attended were at 1500 points. Games at a GW store were usually 1000 points in 2nd Ed. For the first bit of 3rd Ed the game nights shifted to 500 points, but then crept up. People seem to like having more of their models on the table, and it would seem that GW is happy to oblige!

People tend to forget that it is the playerbase that tends to up the point size of games to fit more of their stuff on the table. It's somewhat killed the ease of entry into WHFB as the old grognards just wanted large and epic games, something that new players couldn't easily match.

In other words, as you mentioned, GW is more reacting to the demands of players than anything else. I do hope people remember the 1999+1 shenanigan in 7th(if I recall the edition correctly).

ccs wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
The points costs need to be around 20-30% higher for pretty much everything in the game.

Controversial but there needs to be fewer things on the table.

If you want fewer things on the table, try any of these solutions;
1) play smaller games - less pts = playing with less stuff you know.
2) Build your armies differently. You can make lower to very low count forces.
3) PLAY A DIFFERENT GAME! Games designed for fewer models exist you know. Kill Team comes to mind....

How often do you find someone with a 1500pt list ready to go @ a pick up game? I can tell you that it's a NO even in my permissive play environment. It is extremely difficult for me to schedule games ahead of time as my schedule is fluid. So I play 2k pickup when I can, but love it when I can preplan a game with a like-minded player. It just happens far too infrequently for me.

I'm not really interested in skirmish 40k(other than RT), Necromunda otoh is my jam.
1500pts on an 8x4 with appropriate amount of terrain is where I think 40k works best but that doesn't fit in with the need to play as many tourney games as possible in a day play mode.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
The game was TO fast and TO lethal. No one likes setting models on the table that they spent hours building and painting only to pick them back up 2 min later after the first round of shooting is done.

Apparently JohnHwangDD thinks this is exactly how 40k should work and anything done to prevent this is "bad game design".

I can speak for my own anecdotal evidemce on how hard it is to get people to play smaller games. One of my friends locally has been bery vocal that he's tired of 3 hour games, the repetetive GT missions and all the book keeping of secondaries but trying to get him to even try smaller games or playing narrative missions with simpler scoring gets him all wound up about how it's not the most "balanced" version and not worth playing despite him being largely someone who focuses on campaigns and not playing tournaments.

There is an innate reaction players have to taking stuff out of the game that is much like trying to take a bome from a dog. If points got upped and the game size got shrunk I expect people to just jump to the next points bracket just to keep using all their toys and insist it's GW's fault that the game isn't better balanced around the 3k meta.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Or you could crib from AoS and bring "Realm Rules" in...

Not going to lie with how varied worlds are in 40k that would be nice. Like imagine rules for high (or low) grav planets, deathworlds, ice worlds, ect.

They already did rules for low gravity (or zero gravity) games of 40k in one of the circa 3rd ed Chapter Approved books. Made for some very very interesting games with everything moving as jump infantry but also having -1 to their saves (to represent how dangerous a single breach of your armour was in the void of space). Of course certain players would hate it nowadays as unit's efficiencies are now thrown out of whack.

Of course certain players would hate it nowadays as unit's efficiencies are now thrown out of whack.

1000%.

Using those rules is fun as hell but a good chunk of the player base would rage at them if they had to use those because it shatters the current meta and what they built their armies around.

I have used things like that before, and the Imperial Armor campaigns - and loved them, but by using them I also garnered a community-wide reputation as "making up my own rules as I go" and "replacing the rulebook with my own rulebook and pasting in new rules in the rulebook and saying they were official" because I used those for my campaigns and it really enraged a good chunk of my community.

They are great fun but use things like that at your own peril if you are doing public games.

The Open War deck offers Twists. There is nothing stopping two like-minded players from using Open War to change things up, or come up with their own special rules about the environment.

My own experience is that these are not everyone's cup of tea, so to speak, and most folks prefer Matched Play. In 8th, for instance, I used the Open War deck in basement hammer a fair bit but only once at the FLGS. I also don't think that there is anything wrong with people preferring Matched Play. I certainly do! Doesn't mean I don't ever play "narratively", but my preference is Matched Play for a Saturday afternoon at the FLGS.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
The Open War deck offers Twists. There is nothing stopping two like-minded players from using Open War to change things up, or come up with their own special rules about the environment.

My own experience is that these are not everyone's cup of tea, so to speak, and most folks prefer Matched Play. In 8th, for instance, I used the Open War deck in basement hammer a fair bit but only once at the FLGS. I also don't think that there is anything wrong with people preferring Matched Play. I certainly do! Doesn't mean I don't ever play "narratively", but my preference is Matched Play for a Saturday afternoon at the FLGS.

The open war deck is wonderful and I try to use it as often as I can, nice thing is 3 or 4 players locally have no problem playing with it and have had enuff fun to continue with it.

 Eldarsif wrote:
People tend to forget that it is the playerbase that tends to up the point size of games to fit more of their stuff on the table. It's somewhat killed the ease of entry into WHFB as the old grognards just wanted large and epic games, something that new players couldn't easily match.

In other words, as you mentioned, GW is more reacting to the demands of players than anything else. I do hope people remember the 1999+1 shenanigan in 7th(if I recall the edition correctly).

Escalating game size is really not a thing you can blame players for. Players have always had the option to play higher-points-level games if they so desired.

It's GW that wants you putting more models on the table for a 'standard' game, and favors balance adjustments that make people feel excited (points cuts) rather than annoyed (points increases). Plus for GW's bottom line, it's better if a 'standard' game requires a gakload of expensive models but the game officially supports smaller games as well so you can work your way up. Part of WHFB's problem was that it never handled low-points games particularly well, so there was that massive barrier to entry.

GW's not the only company to push game size beyond what might really be optimal for the ruleset or minis scale. Flames of War I've observed frequently has parking lot battlefields because the scale of the game is too much for the scale of the models. Companies that aren't simultaneously publishing rules and their own minis for those rules seem to have the issue less.

 catbarf wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
People tend to forget that it is the playerbase that tends to up the point size of games to fit more of their stuff on the table. It's somewhat killed the ease of entry into WHFB as the old grognards just wanted large and epic games, something that new players couldn't easily match.

In other words, as you mentioned, GW is more reacting to the demands of players than anything else. I do hope people remember the 1999+1 shenanigan in 7th(if I recall the edition correctly).

Escalating game size is really not a thing you can blame players for. Players have always had the option to play higher-points-level games if they so desired.

It's GW that wants you putting more models on the table for a 'standard' game, and favors balance adjustments that make people feel excited (points cuts) rather than annoyed (points increases). Plus for GW's bottom line, it's better if a 'standard' game requires a gakload of expensive models but the game officially supports smaller games as well so you can work your way up. Part of WHFB's problem was that it never handled low-points games particularly well, so there was that massive barrier to entry.

GW's not the only company to push game size beyond what might really be optimal for the ruleset or minis scale. Flames of War I've observed frequently has parking lot battlefields because the scale of the game is too much for the scale of the models. Companies that aren't simultaneously publishing rules and their own minis for those rules seem to have the issue less.

Yet the jump from 1500 to 1750 and to 2000 was never something GW actively promoted. If anything it's only in 8th they started promoting 1000 and 2000 pt games with their mission book. I would also argue that balancing for 2000 pt is a myth because as it stands 40k isn't really balanced in 2000 games so I am not sure how much more imbalanced it can get in 1000 points except with titanic exceptions(Knights).

Take for example Age of Sigmar 3.0. The game is currently a mess with the game becoming Dragonlance: The Miniature Game with all the Stormcast dragons. I have played the game at 2000 points and the power discrepancies between books is terrifying. Then one day I convinced my friend to play 1000 point AoS games and suddenly the game was a fun thing again and I had much more engaging games than at 2000 points. I now actively only play 1000 pt AoS games to my enjoyment. So I would argue that AoS wasn't explicitly balanced for 2000 pt games anymore than it was balanced for 1000 pt games.

Now, I am not saying GW isn't happy that players are stuck at 2000 as it means more models to sell, but let us not forget that they also offered parameters for 3000 point games that have not become standard. If anything the player base has refused the 1000 pt and 3000 pt versions so ultimately I would argue that the player base is at fault for sitting pretty at 2000. Although it is perhaps a bit harsh to say it is their "fault". It is, after all, just a majority decision of what people like more.

I would also add that when 9th was announced with point hikes across the board there were quite a few people arguing that players would have to up the point size to 2500 or 3000 to make up for the "units lost" in the point hike. In the end people want to play with their toys.

catbarf, that isn't true at all. Bigger game size is definitely the one area where I will blame players forever.

GW held onto 1500 points almost religiously for decades, barring special group events or big narrative battles. WD battle reports, event games, GW store games (the better to cycle the small number of small tables), GW pushed 1500 hard, and for a long time just outright ignored players who pushed for 2000/ or the horrid 2250 on the fantasy side, or 1750 and the weird 1850 on the 40k side.

It was a huge disconnect for a long time, no matter how hard some players lobbied for bigger games. It was one of the major reasons that GW didn't even understand some of the imbalance problems, because they literally didn't exist at the game size they considered 'standard' (especially under percentage based force composition, you just couldn't build some of the game-breaker armies).

On the fantasy side too, game points came down after 3rd edition, and Jervis, Rick and company started treating warhammer rules more like a formal game than a garage hobby. The warhammer armies book (with all the army lists), happily showed off 3K or even 4K armies, but once that edition passed, those basically never existed again outside of special event games).

---
Of course, for 9th edition specifically, this became a problem when they were talked into wiping 1500 out of the standard game sizes. I still think the mindset is there in their heads, and what they're designing for, but the game assumes you're playing either 1000 (and dealing with that mess of imbalance, where some armies just lack tools for what they'll face) or 2000 and anything goes all the time. Its been a huge detriment to the game, and I don't think the designers even understand why.

ccs wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
The points costs need to be around 20-30% higher for pretty much everything in the game.

Controversial but there needs to be fewer things on the table.

If you want fewer things on the table, try any of these solutions;
1) play smaller games - less pts = playing with less stuff you know.
2) Build your armies differently. You can make lower to very low count forces.
3) PLAY A DIFFERENT GAME! Games designed for fewer models exist you know. Kill Team comes to mind....

Racerguy180 wrote:
How often do you find someone with a 1500pt list ready to go @ a pick up game? I can tell you that it's a NO even in my permissive play environment.

Of the people I play with, it depends upon wich of two circles is in question.
Circle #1 - Whatever the game - 40k, Sigmar, WHFB, Flames of War, Bolt action, etc - everyone has multiple default lists. Typically 500/1000/1500/2k pts. Already printed out, already in the pocket of the minis case. And our cases are large enough to transport about 3kpts of stuff.
Circle #2 - these are the people I only ever play with at the local shops. Some have copied us old dogs & carry multiple lists & big enough cases. Others? Much less organized. But all of them are capable of making a list to x pts on the spot. Besides, if you can't spare 10 minutes so the other guy can make a list then you don't have enough time to play anyways.

Racerguy180 wrote:
It is extremely difficult for me to schedule games ahead of time as my schedule is fluid. So I play 2k pickup when I can, but love it when I can preplan a game with a like-minded player. It just happens far too infrequently for me.

You could just as easily draw up several lists ahead of time, see what someone else wants to play, & give them a few minutes if necessary. Afterall you're walking in blind expecting to spend 2+ hours on a larger game anyways. But you expect me to believe you don't have the time for someone to adjust a 2k list down to 1500pts?

This can be answered simply with one word and an imbedded link:

Grimdark

Expecting GW to change course and offer the game you want is insane.

 Tokhuah wrote:
This can be answered simply with one word and an imbedded link:

Grimdark

Expecting GW to change course and offer the game you want is insane.

Nah. Expecting people to jump ship to something else just because you like it is the insane thing. The mass majority of the community hasn't heard of OnePageRules, nor will jump ship to them.

I think the real take away from this thread is that GW needs to accept that Matched Play is the core of the game as most people see it and should be working around that. I'd love it if they also pushed for smaller official game sizes through their partnership with the ITC (I mean you can have more rounds when the rounds are shorter and played at a tighter points level that doesn't let people just cover all the gaps in their army in one list) as well as their own events. I get that people want to put all their toys on the table, but at minimum the competitive scene should be looking to run tighter lists that require more tactical choices to be taken to a high level.

From an earlier discussion (here or in one of the other recent threads), I liked the idea of having games be smaller and then give players sideboards. It could be a way for GW to still push larger "armies" and more forces (heck, they could bump it up to 2,500 points) but then have it so that players are limited to say only fielding 1,500 points at any given time. Force players to make strategic choices about what reserves to bring and how to manage their army around that. Would be great for reducing the number of units on the table at the start of the game.

Agreed. Even though those are good questions to ask and could have been constructive criticism if you think that wasn't something well tapped into in their design instead of an aggressive browbeating.

I'm not a fan of Prohammer's changes either, but then again that's more because I think that the game by the time it hit 7th was already massively bloated and needed a heavy trimming and clean up, not more rules layered on top.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
The Open War deck offers Twists. There is nothing stopping two like-minded players from using Open War to change things up, or come up with their own special rules about the environment.

My own experience is that these are not everyone's cup of tea, so to speak, and most folks prefer Matched Play. In 8th, for instance, I used the Open War deck in basement hammer a fair bit but only once at the FLGS. I also don't think that there is anything wrong with people preferring Matched Play. I certainly do! Doesn't mean I don't ever play "narratively", but my preference is Matched Play for a Saturday afternoon at the FLGS.

Yep, I love the twists. Been using those decks since 8th edition, always been a lot of fun.

 Mezmorki wrote:
From an earlier discussion (here or in one of the other recent threads), I liked the idea of having games be smaller and then give players sideboards. It could be a way for GW to still push larger "armies" and more forces (heck, they could bump it up to 2,500 points) but then have it so that players are limited to say only fielding 1,500 points at any given time. Force players to make strategic choices about what reserves to bring and how to manage their army around that. Would be great for reducing the number of units on the table at the start of the game.

Yeah, this is one of the things I currently like about 9E game size mechanics and roster-based escalation.

I figure you grow your force via escalation (Crusade or otherwise) and build it fluffy- with all the pieces you need to tell the story. Sometimes it's liking the models, or rule of cool or whatever. The point is at this level, you aren't running math hammer to render everything down to damage per point- you're taking the models you actually want.

But then, by playing at a lower point value, you can tune for meta if the urge strikes you to participate in an event or play competitively. Now the default size being 2k means your fluffy roster is into onslaught territory, but that's cool too.

That's how I plan to do it anyway... Not that I ever really care too much about crunching the numbers for competitive play. It is nice to have that option though.

I like the 30/40k universe but I avoided GW stuff since getting out of 40k due to the squattening and necromunda cuz local scene dried up. I gave GW a second glance with 8th...my stupidity.

I love Titanicus, Aeronautica and current Necromunda. But 40k can die a firey death if 9th & the Meta chasers have their way.

30k was kind of a bastion of a granular medium but I'm tepid to the handling of Heresy/Siege of Terra stuff(since Ceraxus never materialized).

 kodos wrote:
this has to do with the GW business model, by selling more models to the same people, those want to play with all of them

hence points per model need to go down and army points need to go up
GW got you into buying 3 Predators, 3 Vindicators and 9 Rhinos, you now want all of them on the table in a standard sized game because otherwise it would be wasted money and you feel cheated by GW

I never wanted to bring my entire collection to a game, I always bought new models to field different lists and to expand my collection. I never understood those who buy, assemble and paint an army that is just about the game's most popular format.

 Blackie wrote:

 kodos wrote:
this has to do with the GW business model, by selling more models to the same people, those want to play with all of them

hence points per model need to go down and army points need to go up
GW got you into buying 3 Predators, 3 Vindicators and 9 Rhinos, you now want all of them on the table in a standard sized game because otherwise it would be wasted money and you feel cheated by GW

I never wanted to bring my entire collection to a game, I always bought new models to field different lists and to expand my collection. I never understood those who buy, assemble and paint an army that is just about the game's most popular format.

Pretty much this

 Kanluwen wrote:
See, I'm aware of the Theaters of War. I like them!

But I've never once seen someone actually play them outside of my little casual club. The reasons you gave about the randomness are why...but also because it messes with the mathhammer.

We stopped using theatres of war for the worst reason possible... because it's yet another layer of rules on top of all those layers some people are already handling. Especially the marine players are already struggling with their chapter tactics, doctrine, super doctrine, prayers, unit upgrades (master of <foo> ), stratagems, battle honors, agendas picked from up to four books, mission pack rules (for example planet strike) and the mission itself.

Genuinely cool ideas GW has written into their campaign books like theatres of war, battlefield assets and the campaign master's edicts are regularly serving as the straw that is breaking the camel's back. People just give up to understand it all and either ignore or forget about the extra layer of rules.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Or you could crib from AoS and bring "Realm Rules" in...

Not going to lie with how varied worlds are in 40k that would be nice. Like imagine rules for high (or low) grav planets, deathworlds, ice worlds, ect.

I'm surprised that those who remember those aspects of the game fondly don't lean more heavily into Theatres of War.

I think its because players want to control how random things are. I loved the randomness of Skaven and 8th Ed Daemons in WHFB but how much randomness is present is based on MY choices rather than just a "wacky stuff happens" table outside of my control (8th Ed Daemons random table of magical silliness not withstanding).

See, I'm aware of the Theaters of War. I like them!

But I've never once seen someone actually play them outside of my little casual club. The reasons you gave about the randomness are why...but also because it messes with the mathhammer.

Yeah right. If they had one where it was a world that messed with Lasgun shots and made them only only shot no matter what, you'd throw a fit because it messed with your little army.

Randomness for the sake of randomness is tedious and that has little to do with mathhamer.

Not all randomness is done purely to be random. Low gravity worlds were mentioned earlier in the thread. Likewise imagine playing in a world in perpetual night. Those don't inflict randomness, but they change the way the game plays which still throws off the mathhammer and makes crunch players less likely to pick them up as rules.

Part of the issue though is that GW didn't put these sorts of things into the core rules. Battlefields affecting game play would do a lot to break up the repetitive nature of 9th's mission sets. Even just 6 battlefields (or say 4 and 2 results that don't add any rules that are rolled for) would go a long way of shaking up the missions.

They don't even have to be drastic differences, but frankly I'd still like to see the mission have a bit more depth than just deployments and rules for scoring.

EviscerationPlague wrote:


Randomness for the sake of randomness is tedious and that has little to do with mathhamer.

I agree. I mean I couldn't stand things like the old bubblechukka or shokk attack gun with totally random profiles for example. But I do like more randomness in terms of throwing less dice and having less way to modify the results. Averagehammer, aka warhammer with guaranteed expected results, is just as boring that randomness for the sake of randomness.

 Blackie wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:


Randomness for the sake of randomness is tedious and that has little to do with mathhamer.

I agree. I mean I couldn't stand things like the old bubblechukka or shokk attack gun with totally random profiles for example. But I do like more randomness in terms of throwing less dice and having less way to modify the results. Averagehammer, aka warhammer with guaranteed expected results, is just as boring that randomness for the sake of randomness.

I think that hits the nail on the head a fair bit with what's wrong with 9th. With people throwing so many dice and having so many ways to improve their odds the probability curve on every action is basically a set thing you can rely on so much that it often doesn't feel like any one die roll is as impactful as it used to feel. And while I'm sure that makes 40k a better sport, it makes it less thrilling and doesn't provide as many stories to chat about later.

I think there needs to be a balance between randomness and averages. We've all had bad turns where the dice just don't go our way and it really sucks and with how lethal 40k is now a bad turn will basically result in an auto-lose. You need some kind of mitigation in the system so that you can adjust the odd in your favor when you need to. Even if it was just something as simple as using CP to roll two dice and choose one.

A (small) boost to the odds is ok, a guaranteed result is not.

One of the reasons Necromunda is my favorite GW game is that pretty much everything fires a single shot with no re-rolls. Modyfiers are present to mess with the odds, but every faction has access to them in the same ways (cover, aim, etc..). This way outcomes are quite swingy and far from expected results in the short period, still leaning to averages in the long run. Which is fun.

Van Saars shouldn't hit everytime for granted just because they are the best marksmen, and with single shot rolls it is possible to fail a couple of shots in a row. Which is a catastrophic result, 30% of the army that misses and does nothing, maybe even the guys armed with the most powerful weapons. The equivalent in 40k can't happen, we roll so many dice and we have so many ways to enhance the results that is impossible to go much lower from the expected results.

This is turning 40k into texas poker, where everything is just an exercise in calculating the odds, to sell 40k as some kind of e-sport and attract even more competitive players and in my opinion this is the game's biggest flaw. Possibly even the only thing I currently don't like about 40k.