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.

 Jidmah wrote:


Personally, I would love much more hindering terrain rules. Playing kill team 2.0 a couple of times really was an eye opener in that regard - essentially stuff is super hard to kill unless you put it out in the open or your opponent flanks or sneaks up on you.

Agreed.

I also really like the choice in KT 2.0 of going into conceal orders.

Narratively speaking, I love the concept of Base of Operations/ Assets in KT 2.0 and I wish there was something similar in KT. Because I tend to combine KT and Crusade using a common roster, I do this in my own games to an extent, but the BoO and Assets only impact KT games (I like to try and keep house-rules to a minimum; using a single roster to feed two different games and running gestalt Battle Honours for units who do double duty doesn't actually involve as many HRs is it may seem, but alter the BoO/ Asset rules to impact 40k would be some heavy lifting, relatively speaking).

On the whole "splitting fire" deal.

I hope we never ever go back to no being able to split fire, it's nonsensical and makes so many loadouts completely useless (any single big gun in a squad with basic guns)

 waefre_1 wrote:

no point in adding a Lascannon to your Infantry Squad if it's either vaporizing grots or so awing the rest of the squad with it's firepower that they forget to shoot things for a turn.

{shrugs} I put such AT weapons in my infantry squads all the time if allowed. Back then & now. The reason I do it is so that:
A) the squad can do whatever's needed throughout the battle. I'd rather have overkilled a grot or something than needed to take on a tank/monster & not have had the weapon.... And in editions where I couldn't split fire? Many guns scattered throughout meant I had more targeting options. Remember, in 3-7th even the toughest vehicles could be taken out by a single good roll on the damage chart.
B) the opponent cannot easily run me out of heavy weapons. Sure, it looks cool to have a heavy weapons platoon or a Dev squad or whatever all bristling with big guns. And I'll certainly use them. But I am NOT going to rely upon them being there. They WILL draw fire. They WILL die. That will be inconvenient. And I will be sad. What won't happen though is me losing my heavy weapon capability.
This has worked well for me decades & continues to work well today. I won't be changing my play style. But if you have some formulae that works for you? Keep doing that.

Gw is imo not a huge fan of integrated heavy weapons at the moment, at least from new kits they’ve designed like Primaris and their encouragement of heavy weapon squads.

brainpsyk wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Karol wrote:
It would be interesting to hear people from the design team explain to us all non designer types why monsters with t8, and multiple defences cost less then 200pts.

It's simple : monsters (and vehicles) arent tough enough.

Their resilience isnt the problem, its their damage output combined with the resilience that is. We need more Monsters and Vehicles to be T8 with a 2+

So true. The funny thing is, with the way the To-Wound chart is, T8 is ridiculously durable to S4 (Intercessor bolt rifle), but toilet paper to dedicated anti-tank (S8+), and cardboard to S5-7. So Guard pay a premium for T8 LRBTs, but still have no durability because of all the S5-8 weapons, and the sheer volume of fire of those weapons.

So, the big bugs get bonuses to durability to counter the S5-8 stuff, so the bugs are where they need to be in terms of durability, but the codex writers can't assign points values to save their lives.

Am I missing something or now that Crusher Stampede is no longer a thing what "multiple defences" do Nids monsters get that you can't get on a Leman Russ? You have a one turn a game invul save from Zoanthropes, -1 tohit from Venomthropes, a 4++ on one monster per army, Catalyst can give you a 5++ and Carnifexs have a native -1D just like dreadnoughts. The only monsters with an innate invul are Hive Tyrants and Malceptors and the Haruspex can regen wounds natively but I really fail to see why anything they have to offer makes them that tough to crack.

Now they are absolutely better than Leman Russes due to typically having a better WS/BS and more wounds, the weapons are more consistent but about as powerful as Leman Russes but really if you can kill a Leman Russ you can kill Tyranid monsters. Again, I am not saying that Tyranid monsters are equal to Leman Russes at all - Tyranids monsters are almost universally better.

Also, Karol you play Grey Knights right? With mortal wound spam and S5 AP -3 D2 attacks you are in a better position than most to combat bugs. Now - again, Grey Knights are in a bit of a bad way competitively but I don't think that Tyranids are worse than Custodes or Harlequins in that regard.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
*sigh* if I meant -literally- impossible to lose half your army in a turn I would have said that. Obviously if someone goes out of their way to be vulnerable or if dice or really crazy unusual stuff can happen. Everyone knows that, bringing it up is a straw man, not a counterargument.

I don't think it's a counterargument, but it's good to clarify that we're all on the same page. My comment was meant to be taken as "I understand what you're saying and agree for the most part, but technically I disagree."

ccs wrote:

 waefre_1 wrote:

no point in adding a Lascannon to your Infantry Squad if it's either vaporizing grots or so awing the rest of the squad with it's firepower that they forget to shoot things for a turn.

{shrugs} I put such AT weapons in my infantry squads all the time if allowed. Back then & now. The reason I do it is so that:
A) the squad can do whatever's needed throughout the battle. I'd rather have overkilled a grot or something than needed to take on a tank/monster & not have had the weapon.... And in editions where I couldn't split fire? Many guns scattered throughout meant I had more targeting options. Remember, in 3-7th even the toughest vehicles could be taken out by a single good roll on the damage chart.
B) the opponent cannot easily run me out of heavy weapons. Sure, it looks cool to have a heavy weapons platoon or a Dev squad or whatever all bristling with big guns. And I'll certainly use them. But I am NOT going to rely upon them being there. They WILL draw fire. They WILL die. That will be inconvenient. And I will be sad. What won't happen though is me losing my heavy weapon capability.
This has worked well for me decades & continues to work well today. I won't be changing my play style. But if you have some formulae that works for you? Keep doing that.

Indeed tac squads specifically were swiss army knives. unlike aspect warriors for eldar who were dedicated by the lore to do one job and do it very well. however they struggle against anything else. the game was more about what you did on the tabletop. dice and list building were always parts of the game but tactical positioning and bringing the right weapon for the job were a huge part of the game. the humble tac squad could be focused on an anti-infantry role by taking a flamer and a heavy bolter with the sgt. sporting a power weapon of some sort. they could also be generalist with a missile launcher and a plasma gun or more dedicated to anti armor/big things by bringing a las/melta combo with a sgt rocking a power fist.

Also las cannons can kill infantry so i do not consider it a waste to shoot at them if that is what needs to be dealt with at the moment.

The ability to split fire was a privilege in previous edition and you paid a premium to do it. much of it was for game balance. some games splitting fire or splitting fire with penalties works well within the rules. however i never feel handicapped when i play 5th ed rules 40K when i cannot normally split fire, because aside from the few special units that can, nobody else in the game can either.

ccs wrote:

 waefre_1 wrote:

no point in adding a Lascannon to your Infantry Squad if it's either vaporizing grots or so awing the rest of the squad with it's firepower that they forget to shoot things for a turn.

{shrugs} I put such AT weapons in my infantry squads all the time if allowed. Back then & now. The reason I do it is so that:
A) the squad can do whatever's needed throughout the battle. I'd rather have overkilled a grot or something than needed to take on a tank/monster & not have had the weapon.... And in editions where I couldn't split fire? Many guns scattered throughout meant I had more targeting options. Remember, in 3-7th even the toughest vehicles could be taken out by a single good roll on the damage chart.
B) the opponent cannot easily run me out of heavy weapons. Sure, it looks cool to have a heavy weapons platoon or a Dev squad or whatever all bristling with big guns. And I'll certainly use them. But I am NOT going to rely upon them being there. They WILL draw fire. They WILL die. That will be inconvenient. And I will be sad. What won't happen though is me losing my heavy weapon capability.
This has worked well for me decades & continues to work well today. I won't be changing my play style. But if you have some formulae that works for you? Keep doing that.

In practice, at least at the tournament level, this usually results in too little shooting to win on attrition and too few bodies to win on objectives. Specialization is usually more efficient, especially when you have a finite and fairly restrictive budget for your force.

No always, but often.

I don't believe split fire is a big issue as far as game balance is concerned, as even in previous editions any competitive army was mostly made of specialists that even today do not really make use of split fire.

 Tyran wrote:
I don't believe split fire is a big issue as far as game balance is concerned, as even in previous editions any competitive army was mostly made of specialists that even today do not really make use of split fire.

I feel like there were a lot of limiting rules in the older editions - and the competitive thing was to just take lists that got around them, or had special rules to ignore them.
So they just ended up as traps for people who didn't know any better.

The idea that 40k is ONLY played at 2k is entirely too entrenched in this forum. Has no one ever considered the fact that some people play below 2k? It's fairly clear that GW has been desperately trying to shift to under 2k, what with the lessening of table sizes, and the renewed focus on Kill Team.

ERJAK wrote:

ccs wrote:

 waefre_1 wrote:

no point in adding a Lascannon to your Infantry Squad if it's either vaporizing grots or so awing the rest of the squad with it's firepower that they forget to shoot things for a turn.

{shrugs} I put such AT weapons in my infantry squads all the time if allowed. Back then & now. The reason I do it is so that:
A) the squad can do whatever's needed throughout the battle. I'd rather have overkilled a grot or something than needed to take on a tank/monster & not have had the weapon.... And in editions where I couldn't split fire? Many guns scattered throughout meant I had more targeting options. Remember, in 3-7th even the toughest vehicles could be taken out by a single good roll on the damage chart.
B) the opponent cannot easily run me out of heavy weapons. Sure, it looks cool to have a heavy weapons platoon or a Dev squad or whatever all bristling with big guns. And I'll certainly use them. But I am NOT going to rely upon them being there. They WILL draw fire. They WILL die. That will be inconvenient. And I will be sad. What won't happen though is me losing my heavy weapon capability.
This has worked well for me decades & continues to work well today. I won't be changing my play style. But if you have some formulae that works for you? Keep doing that.

In practice, at least at the tournament level, this usually results in too little shooting to win on attrition and too few bodies to win on objectives. Specialization is usually more efficient, especially when you have a finite and fairly restrictive budget for your force.

No always, but often.

Back in the days I played in tourneys (3rd -5th) that was never my experience. What I did see a lot of were people often not bringing enough heavy weapons, clumping what they did bring up into convenient to kill Dev squads or such that couldn't split their fire. And then losing said squad(s) in short order. Had to do with some poo about comp scores.

It's also not my experience that I lose games of modern 40k because I invest in a heavy weapons vs another body per squad.

But like I said, you do whatever works for you & I'll keep doing it my way.

ccs wrote:
...A) the squad can do whatever's needed throughout the battle...

And that was always my problem with it. Your squad can do whatever is needed...so long as you never need to shoot a vehicle/MC and an infantry unit at the same time. The AT is there to put hurt on the big fish, the lasguns/bolters/shootas/whatever are there to keep the small fry at bay. If it's all cultists within 24", cool, the AT can pop a head real good and the small arms aren't wasted (literally or figuratively). If there's only vehicles/MCs within 24", great, the AT can do what it's supposed to do and the small arms (while unlikely to do anything) don't have anything better to shoot at so what the hell, why not? If there's both a cultist unit and a vehicle/MC within 24"...suddenly you're being forced to effectively waste the AT or the small arms for what feels like purely game-y reasons. To me at least, it feels pretty similar to the gripes re: Command Points/Stratagems these days - I've got smoke launchers on all my Rhinos, but I can't use that smoke on more than one Rhino at a time for purely artificial reasons. Balanced or not, it just feels wrong to me.

I wouldn't want split firing to go away, if for no other reason; it is one of the few decision points the game actually has the player make at the table. And it often backfires spectacularly when a player expect average results and get a less than stellar return. That's why the saying, "Never split fire" exists. Even when obviously there are times it is a good idea.

On Split-Fire: I appreciated the hard choices it forced in prior editions, but I don't think it's ideal for 40k.

ccs wrote:

 waefre_1 wrote:

no point in adding a Lascannon to your Infantry Squad if it's either vaporizing grots or so awing the rest of the squad with it's firepower that they forget to shoot things for a turn.

{shrugs} I put such AT weapons in my infantry squads all the time if allowed. Back then & now. The reason I do it is so that:
A) the squad can do whatever's needed throughout the battle. I'd rather have overkilled a grot or something than needed to take on a tank/monster & not have had the weapon.... And in editions where I couldn't split fire? Many guns scattered throughout meant I had more targeting options. Remember, in 3-7th even the toughest vehicles could be taken out by a single good roll on the damage chart.
B) the opponent cannot easily run me out of heavy weapons. Sure, it looks cool to have a heavy weapons platoon or a Dev squad or whatever all bristling with big guns. And I'll certainly use them. But I am NOT going to rely upon them being there. They WILL draw fire. They WILL die. That will be inconvenient. And I will be sad. What won't happen though is me losing my heavy weapon capability.
This has worked well for me decades & continues to work well today. I won't be changing my play style. But if you have some formulae that works for you? Keep doing that.

100%. Always took Tacs with Heavy/Specials, and always got great use out of them. Having extra Lascannons around to fish for better Penetration results or to threaten flanked Armor was very useful. For a long time in 3rd/4th my Squads were Las/Flamer for max versatility. Las for harder targets while the Flamers really butchered lighter infantry up close.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
The idea that 40k is ONLY played at 2k is entirely too entrenched in this forum. Has no one ever considered the fact that some people play below 2k? It's fairly clear that GW has been desperately trying to shift to under 2k, what with the lessening of table sizes, and the renewed focus on Kill Team.

I don't always agree with you Fez, but I agree with this for sure. I spend a lot of time on Dakka encouraging people who are dissatisfied with 2k Matched to explore outside that mode of play.

The standard response to this suggestion is "2k matched is the only way I can find an opponent."

I do believe that in some cases, this is genuinely true. But I also believe that there are many people who just don't want to put the effort into engineering a situation that veers from the path of least resistance. I often wonder if everyone who says they can only find 2k Matched games has only played against people who are happy with the current state of the game. Because if YOU don't like the state of the game, and your opponent doesn't like the state of the game, I'm not sure why it's hard to say "Hey man, you seem to dislike some of these recent changes as much as I do; if you're here next week, do you want to try a smaller game, or maybe use the Tempest of War deck?"

And hearing some people talk about how their whole scene has faded because the rules are bad... How does that happen? Like how does anyone invest the time and money to play 2k Matched, decide they don't like that experience... And immediately jump ship for another game, requiring additional expenditures of both money and time, rather than trying an alternative way of playing the game for which they already own painted models.

Eventually, I had to try and dial down my tone, because I was encouraging people to explore other play options that people actually started to get offended by it- like I was telling them they were playing the game "wrong."

And you know, whatever.

Some people have responded that they've tried smaller games, or that they've tried other modes- Crusade, Open or one of the deck-based options- and they still didn't like the game. And that's fine: we all have different preferences. Many have observed that if you really, really like wargames, you may be somewhat less likely to enjoy 40k in any of its modes, because it has too many battlefield states created by special rules rather than working with more conventional table-top tactics that would be common to all armies- things like suppressive fire, positioning, facings, morale, etc. I think there is something to this. There's a whole war in another thread (or maybe this one? they all blend together after a while) about whether or not 9th is like a CCG. Wherever you happen to fall on that spectrum, I think the question really is "Does liking CCGs and RPGs in addition to table top wargames make it more likely that you will enjoy 9th edition?"

I can't speculate about other people's motives and preferences, but I believe the reason the I personally like 9th so much as that I appreciate the elements of the game that seem to me to be reminiscent of CCG's and RPG's, while most other table-top games, which rely more on the common pool of conventional wargame tactics are far less interesting to me. And it isn't that I can't have fun playing those games every now and again- I can... I just don't find it interesting enough to invest time and money in it and obsess about.

Quick final thought, tangentially related: I just got my new WD today, and the Nachmund Flashpoint has the last set in a series of Faith-based that they've been developing through the entire Flashpoint. These ones deal with the Apex of Faith- where you gain the trait PURITANICAL. And what's cool about these rules is that they aren't all positive things that make you tougher. If a unit is Puritanical, its buffs and abilities can only affect other Puritanical units and it can only be affected by the buffs and rules of other Puritanical units. Which I think is awesome: if you increase your supply limit and add a green unit, they haven't proven themselves to be believers yet, and so they can't perform the same kind of battlefield Miracles that more faithful units can.

And people who don't like the game will call that bloat, and they will actually cite something like this as a REASON why they DON'T like the game... Which is crazy to me, because I can't wait to play those stories out on the battlefield.

 waefre_1 wrote:

ccs wrote:
...A) the squad can do whatever's needed throughout the battle...

And that was always my problem with it. Your squad can do whatever is needed...so long as you never need to shoot a vehicle/MC and an infantry unit at the same time. The AT is there to put hurt on the big fish, the lasguns/bolters/shootas/whatever are there to keep the small fry at bay. If it's all cultists within 24", cool, the AT can pop a head real good and the small arms aren't wasted (literally or figuratively). If there's only vehicles/MCs within 24", great, the AT can do what it's supposed to do and the small arms (while unlikely to do anything) don't have anything better to shoot at so what the hell, why not? If there's both a cultist unit and a vehicle/MC within 24"...suddenly you're being forced to effectively waste the AT or the small arms for what feels like purely game-y reasons. To me at least, it feels pretty similar to the gripes re: Command Points/Stratagems these days - I've got smoke launchers on all my Rhinos, but I can't use that smoke on more than one Rhino at a time for purely artificial reasons. Balanced or not, it just feels wrong to me.

Well, having to occasionally make that choice of what to shoot in previous editions was a helluva lot better than not being able to choose at all.
And here in 8th/9th? I will happily split my fire.

PenitentJake wrote:

And hearing some people talk about how their whole scene has faded because the rules are bad... How does that happen? Like how does anyone invest the time and money to play 2k Matched, decide they don't like that experience... And immediately jump ship for another game, requiring additional expenditures of both money and time, rather than trying an alternative way of playing the game for which they already own painted models.

Probably because you can use the models with rules for a better game.

40k fething sucks, man. Units and ENTIRE armies are terribly imbalanced and it's stuck in the ancient IGOUGO turn method. Inertia is literally all it has. You would NOT play this game without the IP you remember fondly a decade or two back. That's just a fact.

Me and my friend started playing Infinity with 40k models. He used Skitarii, and I used Necrons. I eventually bought some Infinity models, and he kept using Skitarii. It's really easy to play with models from 40k for other systems.

PenitentJake wrote:


And hearing some people talk about how their whole scene has faded because the rules are bad... How does that happen? Like how does anyone invest the time and money to play 2k Matched, decide they don't like that experience... And immediately jump ship for another game, requiring additional expenditures of both money and time, rather than trying an alternative way of playing the game for which they already own painted models.

Because some of us understand sunk cost fallacy and remove it from the equation when making decisions on what to do with our time and money. You might as well ask me why I traded in my old car that needed random repairs constantly for a new Tacoma when I had spent so much time and money replacing parts on the old car. Well I did it because my future time and money would be more wisely spent on a better vehicle, just like my future hobby time and money could be more wisely spent on a better game even if I have $10k worth of GW product in my hobby room.

It's pretty telling that one of the main reasons people keep playing 40k is sunk cost fallacy rather than it actually being a better game than anything else on the market...

I know for myself the theme/narrative matters as much if not more than the quality of the rules. I know I'm not the only one. And there is no fallacious thinking in that; many people really do enjoy flawed rules in a setting they like than decent rules in a setting they don't.

And before someone says 'just adapt xyz rules for this setting' it isn't the same. You know it isn't the same. Another factor is the other systems people raise have problems of their own, 40k is so popular that faults and exploits are found immediately. Trust me, they exist in other systems too. Often not nearly as bad, but they are there.

Perhaps one of the biggest barriers is that most players don't want to write their own rules/house rules, and the majority of players who do think they are qualified to do such are very much not. Just look at how many people talk about IGOUO being inherently inferior to AA, with the latter as some magic bullet that fixes everything. It doesn't. It has just as many problems, they are just different problems.

 catbarf wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I think the fire splitting is something that increased damage, but taking it away won't solve the problem.

No split fire is just one example of a constraint on firepower. Older editions had lots of those constraints, 9th doesn't.

In, say, 4th Ed:
-You couldn't shoot most weapon types if you wanted to assault.
-You couldn't move and shoot Heavy.
-You couldn't move a vehicle much and shoot all its guns.
-You couldn't shoot Ordnance as well as other weapon types.
-You couldn't shoot Rapid Fire at full range if you moved.
-You couldn't shoot if you wanted to use Fleet (Advance).
-And yes, you couldn't shoot all your weapons at different targets.

I remember those days and how annoying I found some of those rules at the time. Ah, the benefits of hindsight.

Toofast wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:


And hearing some people talk about how their whole scene has faded because the rules are bad... How does that happen? Like how does anyone invest the time and money to play 2k Matched, decide they don't like that experience... And immediately jump ship for another game, requiring additional expenditures of both money and time, rather than trying an alternative way of playing the game for which they already own painted models.

Because some of us understand sunk cost fallacy and remove it from the equation when making decisions on what to do with our time and money. You might as well ask me why I traded in my old car that needed random repairs constantly for a new Tacoma when I had spent so much time and money replacing parts on the old car. Well I did it because my future time and money would be more wisely spent on a better vehicle, just like my future hobby time and money could be more wisely spent on a better game even if I have $10k worth of GW product in my hobby room.

It's pretty telling that one of the main reasons people keep playing 40k is sunk cost fallacy rather than it actually being a better game than anything else on the market...

Sunk cost is pretty much the only thing keeping me around at this point...I've gone edition to edition thinking that maybe next edition will be better, what a foolish optimism. 8th actually gave me hope, it was new, it was interesting and in the beginning it was decently balanced!

9th has just been as bad as any other edition so really I am not sure if it is worth sticking around. I have over 10k worth of GW as well and off loading it seems like a monumental task but...it might be the best way forward at this point. I just can't even bring myself to build models or paint because what is the point if I don't enjoy the game?

EviscerationPlague wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:

And hearing some people talk about how their whole scene has faded because the rules are bad... How does that happen? Like how does anyone invest the time and money to play 2k Matched, decide they don't like that experience... And immediately jump ship for another game, requiring additional expenditures of both money and time, rather than trying an alternative way of playing the game for which they already own painted models.

Probably because you can use the models with rules for a better game.

40k fething sucks, man. Units and ENTIRE armies are terribly imbalanced and it's stuck in the ancient IGOUGO turn method. Inertia is literally all it has. You would NOT play this game without the IP you remember fondly a decade or two back. That's just a fact.

A fact is that you can't tell me what I would or would not do in any situation because you do not know me.

I have said before, many times that the IGOUGO format is one of the many things that I like about 40k. And you might have trouble understanding that it is possible for people to like different things than you, but I assure you, I like long, slow rhythms more than fast jumpy ones in games, books, music and movies. To me, the ability to coordinate the action between all of the units in my army is more exciting than the potential to disrupt my opponent's ability to do so. Some people have ADD; I have the opposite condition- that which does not require an extended period of attention from me is just not enough for me to sink me teeth into and comes across as boring. You say the phrase "One page rules" and I can tell you without reading it that it will bore me to tears. Note that I'm not saying One Page Rules is a bad game- it probably is a great game... But that doesn't mean I'm going to like it.

Balance is probably about number four on my list of priorities in a game. I "care" about it- games are better with it than they are without it, for sure.

But Dust? Couldn't care less about it, even though it's more balanced than 40k ever will be or has ever been. Ditto on Chain of Command. X-wing and Battletech have a better chance of appealing to me, but honestly? It's still a real longshot for someone with my particular set of preferences. Notice again how I didn't say any of those are bad games either? It's because I recognize that there is no such thing as an objectively "good" or an objectively "bad" game- it's all about either how well a game does or does not conform to specified set of parameters, and in the absence of a specified set of parameters, it's about how well a game conforms to one's own preferences.

To me, it is far more important that every faction has distinct subfactions which perform differently enough from the others than it is to be balanced. The only editions of 40k that have ever offered this are 8th and 9th. And before anyone pipes up about the editions that had awesome Chaos subfactions, kick ass Tyranid biomorphs or wicked guard regimental traits, let me state that I've played Sisters since 2nd and an OoOML and a Bloody Rose sister have performed identically on the battlefield in every edition until 8th. And it never mattered how diverse Chaos, or Tyranids or Guard were when I played sisters.

To me it is more important that the game includes a progression system with built in escalation mechanics than it is for a game to be balanced.

To me it is more important that the progression system includes faction specific elements that are only available to that faction... And quite frankly, 40k would be even closer to suiting my particular tastes if there were subfaction specific elements of the progression system that were only available to those subfactions- the Eldar dex comes closest to this ideal, though even it doesn't go as far as it could.

To me, it is more important that there is ongoing narrative support for an evolving, shared story than it is that the game be balanced.

If you took any of these four things away from 9th ed and spit it back to me perfectly balanced, I personally would like it less.

Since I know me better than you know me, I'm gonna say that one more time for the cheap seats:

IF YOU TOOK ANY OF THESE FOUR THINGS AWAY FROM 9TH ED AND SPIT IT BACK TO ME PERFECTLY BALANCED, I PERSONALLY WOULD LIKE IT LESS.

Does that mean that 9th ed as is would be better than your ideal version? No. Because again, objectively "good" and objectively "bad" are things that don't exist.

Are we getting this yet?

Toofast wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:


And hearing some people talk about how their whole scene has faded because the rules are bad... How does that happen? Like how does anyone invest the time and money to play 2k Matched, decide they don't like that experience... And immediately jump ship for another game, requiring additional expenditures of both money and time, rather than trying an alternative way of playing the game for which they already own painted models.

Because some of us understand sunk cost fallacy and remove it from the equation when making decisions on what to do with our time and money. You might as well ask me why I traded in my old car that needed random repairs constantly for a new Tacoma when I had spent so much time and money replacing parts on the old car. Well I did it because my future time and money would be more wisely spent on a better vehicle, just like my future hobby time and money could be more wisely spent on a better game even if I have $10k worth of GW product in my hobby room.

It's pretty telling that one of the main reasons people keep playing 40k is sunk cost fallacy rather than it actually being a better game than anything else on the market...

It's a more diverse game with a lot more freedom than any game on the market at a scale that few match. You can even sell your army for about what you paid for it so I'm not sure sunk cost is a thing with this particular hobby.

But, sure, we're just rubes beholden to sunk cost and don't play anything else either.

Funny i never have seen an army sell for as much as you paid for it unless it is some pro-painted overpriced work of art.

Prior to the coming of re-casting or 3d printing every 40K player i ever knew was looking for a deal or for bits to make something. especially if you had to re-paint the force to match your faction colors.
I also do not see it as diverse or with freedom especially now where the meta has forced players into obvious choices than any other system out there.

As PenitentJake pointed out though different things appeal to different people i despise CCGs, and while i love D&D 3.5 i do not want it in my war game.

I do not want 40K to be a balanced game for tournament play. i like it better when things behaved as they would in universe with wonky builds and restrictions that make them better or worse because that is how they behave. it was designed as a parody for the flagship GW game at the time WHFB. that is why i went back to playing older editions. the journey for some of us is more important that the W/L, or rather a unit is "worth it's points" or "earns it's points back". it doesn't matter to me if i am playing a 250 point game or a 10K point game. i play with the models i like and the forces i like because i like them, not because it is the best options/performer. fortunately i have a large like minded group of veteran players who like a good match and a bit of silly fun along the way. to most of us 9th ed isn't even close to that. i understand he has a personal issue with SOB, and i understand for a very long time they got ignored by GW. if they had the same level of unique army builds like the ones marines got in the index astartes books of the same era he would have felt different about it. fleshing out the different orders is a nice idea that i would agree with if the core edition it finally appeared in wasn't a flaming pile of GAK in my book.

I also love the idea of a campaign or narrative, but i do not need GW to do that for me, we as the players always did that on our own, just like the many classic battletech campaigns i have taken part in over the years.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
The idea that 40k is ONLY played at 2k is entirely too entrenched in this forum. Has no one ever considered the fact that some people play below 2k? It's fairly clear that GW has been desperately trying to shift to under 2k, what with the lessening of table sizes, and the renewed focus on Kill Team.

Because for a lot of players, including several posters on dakka and including several posters who don't even play, the only 40k that exists is the 40k that can be tracked with data. And data are all about 2000 points games.

So as long as tournaments enforce the 2000 points formats, for them 40k is only acceptable at 2000 points.

I prefer 1500 for example.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:

And hearing some people talk about how their whole scene has faded because the rules are bad... How does that happen? Like how does anyone invest the time and money to play 2k Matched, decide they don't like that experience... And immediately jump ship for another game, requiring additional expenditures of both money and time, rather than trying an alternative way of playing the game for which they already own painted models.

Probably because you can use the models with rules for a better game.

40k fething sucks, man. Units and ENTIRE armies are terribly imbalanced and it's stuck in the ancient IGOUGO turn method. Inertia is literally all it has. You would NOT play this game without the IP you remember fondly a decade or two back. That's just a fact.

A fact huh?

PenitentJake wrote:
And hearing some people talk about how their whole scene has faded because the rules are bad... How does that happen? Like how does anyone invest the time and money to play 2k Matched, decide they don't like that experience... And immediately jump ship for another game, requiring additional expenditures of both money and time, rather than trying an alternative way of playing the game for which they already own painted models.

I think you overestimate the attachment people have to playing with their models. During 7th the game simply died here - people either retired their armies to display cases, put them in storage, sold them or even gave them away.
To most people 40k is just one hobby of many and when it stops being fun, it gets less and less time until they stop bothering with it.

40k also isn't seen as an investment by most people I know. A hobby is something where you burn money in order to enjoy your time. To them the money and time spent is not considered to be any different from the money and time spent to go to a concert, on vacation, for a video game or a MMORPG subscription.
When you consider all money to be lost the second you pay for your models, books and paints, it doesn't really matter how much you have sunk into the hobby. You just stop doing it when it stops being fun.

 aphyon wrote:
I do not want 40K to be a balanced game for tournament play.

Why not? It being so wouldn't mean the game would be any worse for narrative play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PenitentJake wrote:
And hearing some people talk about how their whole scene has faded because the rules are bad... How does that happen? Like how does anyone invest the time and money to play 2k Matched, decide they don't like that experience... And immediately jump ship for another game, requiring additional expenditures of both money and time, rather than trying an alternative way of playing the game for which they already own painted models.

Eventually, I had to try and dial down my tone, because I was encouraging people to explore other play options that people actually started to get offended by it- like I was telling them they were playing the game "wrong."

I'm taking this to mean that your later comment about the things you find important about 40k isn't really accurate; top of the list, and more important by an order of magnitude than anything else is SUNK COST FALLACY, and specifically the manifestation where you get upset or stressed when other people don't experience the same angst over their sunk cost, and leave to find better things to do with their time.