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.

I do think the CC morale resolution mechanics needed tweaking. In 4th, modifiers were applied for outnumbering, but in 5th modifiers were applied for casualty amounts. I think combining the two would have been better. It did feel wrong to see a 20 bot unit of Necron Warriors get sweeped for losing 3 models to five Space Marines or whatever.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I do think the CC morale resolution mechanics needed tweaking. In 4th, modifiers were applied for outnumbering, but in 5th modifiers were applied for casualty amounts. I think combining the two would have been better. It did feel wrong to see a 20 bot unit of Necron Warriors get sweeped for losing 3 models to five Space Marines or whatever.

Honestly i think sweeping advance should just kill a given portion of the squad fleeing rather then outright wipe it.

In WHFB 6th, you get a +1 for outnumber, +1 per rank past the first for up to 3 additional ranks, a +1 for each wound caused or model killed, i forget which, a bonus of up to +5 for overkill from challenges, +2 from rear charges, +1 from flank charges, but the last two don't stack. You add up everything, then reduce the amount you win by from their Leadership, which they then need to roll for Fantasy Sweeping Advance. To port it over to 40k, you'd have to drop rear and flank charges, which is how WHFB handles Skirmish units, so we can just borrow that, and change the ranks to +1 for every five models in addition to the first five to a max of three.

So, 25 Orks in melee with 3 Custodes, assuming the orks kill one, and the custards kill 5, I don't know the real numbers, the Orks outnumber, have +3 from the amount of models past the first 5, did three wounds total, and have a total score of 7. The custards did 5, and don't have enough to qualify for the "Horde/Rank" bonus, so they lose the combat by 2, and now must make a leadership-2 test.

Alternatively, if the Custards had a leader in the unit that challenged the Nob and won, let's say Trajann or something, and he did like 5 wounds more than he had, the Custards would have an overkill bonus of +5, and now the Orks need to make a Leadership roll of -3 if everything else went down how it did.

Now, if Orks had the Skaven Leadership rules, they'd get a +1 to Leadership for every rank, so every 5 models after the first 5, so they'd be at a +3 here too. This would mean they make a base leadership test.

Opinions?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I do think the CC morale resolution mechanics needed tweaking. In 4th, modifiers were applied for outnumbering, but in 5th modifiers were applied for casualty amounts. I think combining the two would have been better. It did feel wrong to see a 20 bot unit of Necron Warriors get sweeped for losing 3 models to five Space Marines or whatever.

Honestly i think sweeping advance should just kill a given portion of the squad fleeing rather then outright wipe it.

Me and my friends made it so the sweeping unit gets auto hits equal to the attack characteristic of everyone who makes it back into combat. Granted, this was for Fantasy, so my Plague Monks got 3 attacks each, and my Stormvermin got 1 each, it also meant you charged in the next combat round, so you got to go first again regardless. Winning combat, even if less devastating, is still harsh.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Karol, how do you think the following should compare to a Tac Marine or an Intercessor, on a one-to-one, model-to-model basis?

Necron Warrior
Tyranid Warrior
Dire Avenger (or other aspects, if you like)
Ork Boy
Ork Nob

Overall inferior across the board with the possible exception of Tyranid Warriors and the Dire Avenger (who is still inferior in some ways, like durability and strength, while being quicker). Aspect Warriors should be better than base Marines at whatever their specialty is, so howling banshees are more lethal in melee.

 Void__Dragon wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Karol, how do you think the following should compare to a Tac Marine or an Intercessor, on a one-to-one, model-to-model basis?

Necron Warrior
Tyranid Warrior
Dire Avenger (or other aspects, if you like)
Ork Boy
Ork Nob

Overall inferior across the board with the possible exception of Tyranid Warriors and the Dire Avenger (who is still inferior in some ways, like durability and strength, while being quicker). Aspect Warriors should be better than base Marines at whatever their specialty is, so howling banshees are more lethal in melee.

So an Ork Nob should be inferior to a Tac Marine? I can't agree with that.

What did you expecting from someone who doesn't even know that dire avengers are aspect warriors?

 Backspacehacker wrote:


Im not sure what game you are playing but i dont think its current 40k. Becuase the balance of 40k is currently hands down, with out question the WORST its ever been.

Internal balance is hands down the best it's ever been.

External balance is usual stuff but only if you consider a specific moment of the edition, as due to frequent changes/nerfs/updates it's certainly much better than it always has been. No time to chase the flavour of the month for the vast majority of players now since it's not going to last long enough.

But I guess if you play AM or chaos you might see things differently.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Backspacehacker wrote:


So to the OP and anyone who feels the same, drop 9th ed like a sack of potatos, and just come play HH.

HH is for power armour fanboys though, which someone might not be. I know I'm not, never been a fan of SM and can't stand anything chaos. I like 10 factions in 40k and only one of them (SW) is present in HH, but lacking all my favorite units which are also the faction's most flavourful ones though.

Kind of feel this "where do you see Tactical Marines" is just a function of when you joined the hobby.

Back in the day I'd have said a marine, necron warrior, Aspect Warrior and Nob should have all been +/- a point of each other, with those points going towards different things. A Boy would be cheaper (and worse) than those - much closer to a Guardian or Guardsman in power (but again, those points buying different things - i.e. toughness 4). A Tyranid Warrior would be a bit more (but really always had a sort of unclear position in terms of power & rules and generally weren't great as a result).

But... that was then and this is now. I don't really have a problem with Marines being much "bigger" in the game - to frankly reflect their place in the fluff as most bolter addicts seem to want. I think its reasonable that 10 Marines on the table should represent something a lot more significant/chunky than say 10 necron warriors, who have been progressively downranked in terms of 40k's food chain.

But in game you don't work with models in isolation - you work with points. "100 points of Marines" can be represented by 5 models or 10. That doesn't really matter. The point is that they can't for those 100 points get the most resilience of every faction - while simultaneously also being the fastest, the shootiest and the punchiest.

FWIW In terms of Eldar I feel DA have always sort of been "Guardians+" and the cheapest Aspect Warriors - so while I kind of feel they should have remained troops, I don't think they are necesarilly the bar given Marine ascension. For example I don't think Striking Scorpions and say Assault Intercessors are too far apart. The Intercessors have T4 and 2 wounds - but the Scorpions have tricks. Now maybe you could say that's not the bar, Assault Intercessors should be compared with Storm Guardians, while Scorpions are Compared with Bladeguard or something - but meh. Wraithguard are there if you want them.

Plenty of alternative morale systems out there. I think the problem with most is the GW design philosophy of not having to mark/remember stuff (so reloading weapons, unit states etc.) from turn to turn.

 Blackie wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:


Im not sure what game you are playing but i dont think its current 40k. Becuase the balance of 40k is currently hands down, with out question the WORST its ever been.

Internal balance is hands down the best it's ever been.

External balance is usual stuff but only if you consider a specific moment of the edition, as due to frequent changes/nerfs/updates it's certainly much better than it always has been. No time to chase the flavour of the month for the vast majority of players now since it's not going to last long enough.

But I guess if you play AM or chaos you might see things differently.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Backspacehacker wrote:


So to the OP and anyone who feels the same, drop 9th ed like a sack of potatos, and just come play HH.

HH is for power armour fanboys though, which someone might not be. I know I'm not, never been a fan of SM and can't stand anything chaos. I like 10 factions in 40k and only one of them (SW) is present in HH, but lacking all my favorite units which are also the faction's most flavourful ones though.

HH is for anyone who wants a better balanced game, and thematic battles, there are options to not play marines, custodes, mechanicum, guard, knights, and even daemons. The only thing not offered in there are xeno races.
Which truth be told, i would not be against adding orks and eldar considering they fought those all the time in the HH.

Tyel wrote:

Spoiler:

Kind of feel this "where do you see Tactical Marines" is just a function of when you joined the hobby.

Back in the day I'd have said a marine, necron warrior, Aspect Warrior and Nob should have all been +/- a point of each other, with those points going towards different things. A Boy would be cheaper (and worse) than those - much closer to a Guardian or Guardsman in power (but again, those points buying different things - i.e. toughness 4). A Tyranid Warrior would be a bit more (but really always had a sort of unclear position in terms of power & rules and generally weren't great as a result).

But... that was then and this is now. I don't really have a problem with Marines being much "bigger" in the game - to frankly reflect their place in the fluff as most bolter addicts seem to want. I think its reasonable that 10 Marines on the table should represent something a lot more significant/chunky than say 10 necron warriors, who have been progressively downranked in terms of 40k's food chain.

But in game you don't work with models in isolation - you work with points. "100 points of Marines" can be represented by 5 models or 10. That doesn't really matter. The point is that they can't for those 100 points get the most resilience of every faction - while simultaneously also being the fastest, the shootiest and the punchiest.

FWIW In terms of Eldar I feel DA have always sort of been "Guardians+" and the cheapest Aspect Warriors - so while I kind of feel they should have remained troops, I don't think they are necesarilly the bar given Marine ascension. For example I don't think Striking Scorpions and say Assault Intercessors are too far apart. The Intercessors have T4 and 2 wounds - but the Scorpions have tricks. Now maybe you could say that's not the bar, Assault Intercessors should be compared with Storm Guardians, while Scorpions are Compared with Bladeguard or something - but meh. Wraithguard are there if you want them.

"Blah blah blah Space Marines uber alles". . .

God I hate this gak. Heaven forbid you bought into a non-marine faction on the idea they were any good.

There is another coin to the morale piece - not involving "not having to track extra stuff". The GW systems have always included morale or battle shock in some form or fashion.

There's also the part that people in the general audience find it a negative play experience when their guys are removed from the table because they chose to run.

That particular piece I remember vividly from a Games Day back in either 2009 or 2010 when that question came up about how leadership did not mean as much anymore (and this was again back in 2009 or 2010 so this conversation has been around for some time) and Phil Kelly mentioned the above - that people just didn't enjoy when their dudesmen were just removed from the table because they failed a morale roll or whatever and Alan Bligh was there nearby at the Horus Heresy reveal and said something about the inquisition would track you down if you ran and "pkow" lol.

I know that is particularly true in any gamey-game I've been involved in that involves war - morale is not something that really gets a lot of love because its not as fun and isn't what you'd see as much in movies (quote and unquote from I have been told by producers).

Military sims on the other hand do use morale quite a bit because in war you often seek to destroy your enemy's will to fight, but in gamey games thats not terribly cinematic.

"To see your enemies driven before you" is a pleasure of life tho

 Insectum7 wrote:
"To see your enemies driven before you" is a pleasure of life tho

Its a requirement for any wargame or war-themed game i play

I think it was the Psychology and Break Test sections that first hooked me into fantasy battle as a game back in the 4th edition. That sort of thing made it more than just a game, it is tough to explain

Dai wrote:
I think it was the Psychology and Break Test sections that first hooked me into fantasy battle as a game back in the 4th edition. That sort of thing made it more than just a game, it is tough to explain

For sure. Me as well. Getting your opponent's army to run away and watch them roll off from a good flank hit and spreading that good old panic.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Personally im not a fan of how it works now. I hate that i can loose more models to moral checks then i do from getting shot at.

That's incredibly improbable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Racerguy180 wrote:

40k went from a game where you played out dramatic battles of the 41st millennia to a sanitized board game that is warhammer themed.

This sadly sums it up.

This seems like a really vague assertion without a real definition. Would someone care to elaborate?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 auticus wrote:

Dai wrote:
I think it was the Psychology and Break Test sections that first hooked me into fantasy battle as a game back in the 4th edition. That sort of thing made it more than just a game, it is tough to explain

For sure. Me as well. Getting your opponent's army to run away and watch them roll off from a good flank hit and spreading that good old panic.

It was fun. At times it was not fair given the units available to certain armies and often resulted in focusing on small fast units rather than large blocks unless you had stubborn, steadfast, or unbreakable.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

40k went from a game where you played out dramatic battles of the 41st millennia to a sanitized board game that is warhammer themed.

This sadly sums it up.

This seems like a really vague assertion without a real definition. Would someone care to elaborate?

I think this has been elaborated upon numerous times by now, and if you haven't gotten it yet you probably won't get it with another elaboration.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I think this has been elaborated upon numerous times by now, and if you haven't gotten it yet you probably won't get it with another elaboration.

Has it? Because I've made replies to some of those things ( that were also very vague ) and then people go radio silent.

It was fun. At times it was not fair given the units available to certain armies and often resulted in focusing on small fast units rather than large blocks unless you had stubborn, steadfast, or unbreakable.

I'm often told on these boards fair is subjective. There are a lot to GW games that are grotesquely out of balance with fair though but yeah every edition has things that are wtf moments.

For my money though the morale of the past are part of what hooked me into their games.

I have now discovered the joy of GM'd games where people cannot cherry pick their forces and it has opened up a whole new world for me. I was even considering a small 40k army again under the circumstances that it be scenario heavy and GM driven and not tournament cherry picking. Its brought a level of enthusiasm back to me that I have lost for years.

So you wanna play RT?

auticus wrote:

It was fun. At times it was not fair given the units available to certain armies and often resulted in focusing on small fast units rather than large blocks unless you had stubborn, steadfast, or unbreakable.

I'm often told on these boards fair is subjective. There are a lot to GW games that are grotesquely out of balance with fair though but yeah every edition has things that are wtf moments.

For my money though the morale of the past are part of what hooked me into their games.

I have now discovered the joy of GM'd games where people cannot cherry pick their forces and it has opened up a whole new world for me. I was even considering a small 40k army again under the circumstances that it be scenario heavy and GM driven and not tournament cherry picking. Its brought a level of enthusiasm back to me that I have lost for years.

Racerguy180 wrote:So you wanna play RT?

It's not exclusive to rt...

We play most of our wargames like this auticus. Rt might have spelled it out to play like that, as racerguy says, but any game can be played like this - especially in the historical sphere; this is still fairly normal. The guys I play with came from that background and we've taken it to pretty much everything we play.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I think this has been elaborated upon numerous times by now, and if you haven't gotten it yet you probably won't get it with another elaboration.

Has it? Because I've made replies to some of those things ( that were also very vague ) and then people go radio silent.

Sure i'll elaborate.

From 3rd to 7th 40k was a better system to play out the original spirit of the game, which was, to re-enact, and depict thematic and dramatic battles of the 41st millennia on the table top. This was doable because of a wide range of unit customization, rules, abilities, and powers, which allowed the player to make an army that fit their idea of what their army should be or a theme to it. A player in past editions would have the ability to make very thematic and fluffy armies and they would still work.
The game also had systems that better represented the interactions of weapons and units on the battlegrounds, things like templates and blast markers representing explosions, higher skilled melee units able to cut down untrained melee units with much more ease rather hten you just hit on a 3+ no matter what.
You also had things like armor facings, which empisised the idea that tanks are weak in the rear, this like LoS being needed for weapons that were on one side on the vehicles.
Psyker powers were also far more dynamic and unique not just 12 different ways to say you do d3 mortal wounds.
On top of that you had a lot more thematic rules like challenges, death and glory, tank shocks, pinning and fear tests that meant more ect ect. Battles flowed far more dramatically and were much more engaging.

These are just some of the example of what i mean when i say 40k used to be about thematic battles, it had more complicated rules and more in depth rules that really were not difficult to remember or follow. The constant complaining about USR was one that never really was an issue save for places like dakka who liked to complain about having to remember things.

8th and 9th ed stripped out these in depth rules in favor of more streamlined content. Units that were once designed to be brutal melee strikers that had very few units that could stand up to them in melee now have just boring hits on 2+. Removal of initive in favor of "Well we just all attack at once now." The general dumbing down of rules and psyker powers, the removal of thematic elements like templates and facings in favor of "faster" mechanics, and the false guise of "It removed arguments"

On top of that, many of the armies lack real balance because the current system is designed to be reactive to the tournament scene, with balance sheets directly caused by tournaments.
The changing of the wounding system, hit system, and AP system all have reduced the verity of weapons making them all feel bland and boring and in some cases, guard, making their entire army extremely weak.
The majority of a game is decided on the list building, not the table, because all of those thematic interactions have been removed. Modern 40k games are more or less you are just there for the ride. The average 40k player is playing your typical ITC table, terrain, and rules. Every singe game in major cities or local shops are just all games to prepare for the next tournament.
My city, a city of 300k, with 5 shops, all are the same thing, boring tournament prep games, no flavor, no soul, just boring net lists that focus on statistical outcomes.

Modern 40k is just the most souless board game in comparison to the systems of the past, HH 2.0 seems to even validate that this is something that a large portion of the gaming population crave as well with HH 2.0 rules maintaining far more of the thematic interactions along with more back and forht interactions via the reaction system, allowing for a more dynamic and non predictable outcome.

Thats my elaboration on what i mean when i say.
"40k went from a game wehere you played out dramatic battles of the 4st millennia to a sanitized board game that is warhammer themed."

 Backspacehacker wrote:

Spoiler:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I think this has been elaborated upon numerous times by now, and if you haven't gotten it yet you probably won't get it with another elaboration.

Has it? Because I've made replies to some of those things ( that were also very vague ) and then people go radio silent.

Sure i'll elaborate.

From 3rd to 7th 40k was a better system to play out the original spirit of the game, which was, to re-enact, and depict thematic and dramatic battles of the 41st millennia on the table top. This was doable because of a wide range of unit customization, rules, abilities, and powers, which allowed the player to make an army that fit their idea of what their army should be or a theme to it. A player in past editions would have the ability to make very thematic and fluffy armies and they would still work.
The game also had systems that better represented the interactions of weapons and units on the battlegrounds, things like templates and blast markers representing explosions, higher skilled melee units able to cut down untrained melee units with much more ease rather hten you just hit on a 3+ no matter what.
You also had things like armor facings, which empisised the idea that tanks are weak in the rear, this like LoS being needed for weapons that were on one side on the vehicles.
Psyker powers were also far more dynamic and unique not just 12 different ways to say you do d3 mortal wounds.
On top of that you had a lot more thematic rules like challenges, death and glory, tank shocks, pinning and fear tests that meant more ect ect. Battles flowed far more dramatically and were much more engaging.

These are just some of the example of what i mean when i say 40k used to be about thematic battles, it had more complicated rules and more in depth rules that really were not difficult to remember or follow. The constant complaining about USR was one that never really was an issue save for places like dakka who liked to complain about having to remember things.

8th and 9th ed stripped out these in depth rules in favor of more streamlined content. Units that were once designed to be brutal melee strikers that had very few units that could stand up to them in melee now have just boring hits on 2+. Removal of initive in favor of "Well we just all attack at once now." The general dumbing down of rules and psyker powers, the removal of thematic elements like templates and facings in favor of "faster" mechanics, and the false guise of "It removed arguments"

On top of that, many of the armies lack real balance because the current system is designed to be reactive to the tournament scene, with balance sheets directly caused by tournaments.
The changing of the wounding system, hit system, and AP system all have reduced the verity of weapons making them all feel bland and boring and in some cases, guard, making their entire army extremely weak.
The majority of a game is decided on the list building, not the table, because all of those thematic interactions have been removed. Modern 40k games are more or less you are just there for the ride. The average 40k player is playing your typical ITC table, terrain, and rules. Every singe game in major cities or local shops are just all games to prepare for the next tournament.
My city, a city of 300k, with 5 shops, all are the same thing, boring tournament prep games, no flavor, no soul, just boring net lists that focus on statistical outcomes.

Modern 40k is just the most souless board game in comparison to the systems of the past, HH 2.0 seems to even validate that this is something that a large portion of the gaming population crave as well with HH 2.0 rules maintaining far more of the thematic interactions along with more back and forht interactions via the reaction system, allowing for a more dynamic and non predictable outcome.

Thats my elaboration on what i mean when i say.
"40k went from a game wehere you played out dramatic battles of the 4st millennia to a sanitized board game that is warhammer themed."

You put it much better than I would have. I didn't play 3-7th so I can't really speak on the game from that time frame.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I think this has been elaborated upon numerous times by now, and if you haven't gotten it yet you probably won't get it with another elaboration.

Has it? Because I've made replies to some of those things ( that were also very vague ) and then people go radio silent.

Sure i'll elaborate.

From 3rd to 7th 40k was a better system to play out the original spirit of the game, which was, to re-enact, and depict thematic and dramatic battles of the 41st millennia on the table top. This was doable because of a wide range of unit customization, rules, abilities, and powers, which allowed the player to make an army that fit their idea of what their army should be or a theme to it. A player in past editions would have the ability to make very thematic and fluffy armies and they would still work.
The game also had systems that better represented the interactions of weapons and units on the battlegrounds, things like templates and blast markers representing explosions, higher skilled melee units able to cut down untrained melee units with much more ease rather hten you just hit on a 3+ no matter what.
You also had things like armor facings, which empisised the idea that tanks are weak in the rear, this like LoS being needed for weapons that were on one side on the vehicles.
Psyker powers were also far more dynamic and unique not just 12 different ways to say you do d3 mortal wounds.
On top of that you had a lot more thematic rules like challenges, death and glory, tank shocks, pinning and fear tests that meant more ect ect. Battles flowed far more dramatically and were much more engaging.

These are just some of the example of what i mean when i say 40k used to be about thematic battles, it had more complicated rules and more in depth rules that really were not difficult to remember or follow. The constant complaining about USR was one that never really was an issue save for places like dakka who liked to complain about having to remember things.

This is all subjective though. "Better" is a subjective term. IMHO the system is much better now for example. So is balance. You simply preferred the old game (and I suspect how your army/armies performed) and it's totally fine of course, but that's it. In no way it was objectively more immersive, "closer to the original spirit of the game", let alone "better".

As for immersion or themed armies... why do you think that only vehicles (and not even all of them) should be weaker in the rare? Backstabbing has always been a thing in D&D for example, in WHFB units got bonuses when charging the flank or rare of their targets. Also, don't you like the fact that now there are subfaction specific rules? For example you couldn't play Evil Sunz or Goffs in the past, just Orks.

The blast, facings, fire arcs, vehicle's damage table, kill points missions, no fight first for chargers, hits in combat only possible on 3s, 4s or 5s despite 10 possible values of WS, all or nothing saves, etc... are all mechanics that kinda used to break my immersion, never liked any of those and I'm glad they've gone. WHFB actually already made some of those mechanics pretty obsolete and I never understood why 40k kept using the all or nothing saves, the fighting based only on initiative, the KP mission instead of actual points of killed stuff, etc... for a really long time after they were introduced in the fantasy game.

Also, while it's true that some options are gone, now most of the factions have way more units to choose from. The 3rd edition ork codex had like a third or half of the current roster, and losing a few combinations on some HQs was widely compensated.

Of course it is subjective, i never suggest its not, i explicitly say its better because the old systems had more thematic, the newer system sucks for thematic and the original spirit of the game.

Modern 40k is better, if you want a tournament game that lacks soul and thematic interactions.
If you want more ture to the original intent of 40k, then older editions are better.

There is no debate that modern 40k is a stripped down set of rules form past editions, thats just a fact, it was even one of GWs selling points. With the reduction of those rules, it removed intricacy of them.
Many people got into 40k for it being a wargame, and being more inline with the original intent of a wargame. Which quick history lesson, wargames were pushed hard in the UK as officer training tools.
Modern 40k removed many of these more intricate systems and made the game more bland because of it.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Personally im not a fan of how it works now. I hate that i can loose more models to moral checks then i do from getting shot at.

That's incredibly improbable.

Normal in most historical wargames and real life.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
The average 40k player is playing your typical ITC table, terrain, and rules. Every singe game in major cities or local shops are just all games to prepare for the next tournament.

Not many netlists but tourney play dominates the 40k club games in my local.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Of course it is subjective, i never suggest its not, i explicitly say its better because the old systems had more thematic, the newer system sucks for thematic and the original spirit of the game.

Modern 40k is better, if you want a tournament game that lacks soul and thematic interactions.
If you want more ture to the original intent of 40k, then older editions are better.

Yeah 40k felt really thematic when I lost 90% of my 5th/6th Ed games with my Orks because I wasn't running the one netlist that could win in a casual environment. Felt real thematic that my Deathskulls with all their Meks, Lootas and Looted Wagons got bodied every single game by someone who would just spam the best units in their Codex. People had a great time when all the Craftworlds players at our local decided to play thematic Iyanden armies and drop loads of tough elite units equipped with some of the hardest-hitting weapons in the game as troops.
Past editions of 40k were just as unbalanced and broken as the recent ones, the only difference is that Twitter, Facebook, and forums are a lot more widely used by people to complain about it.

@backspacehacker

I know where you're coming from, and I miss some of those old features of the game you mention- tank shocks and fear checks, etc.

But I have difficulty with the notion that 9th is less thematic than previous versions. I think this may be connected to the armies I play. If you're a sisters player, it's very difficult to argue that previous versions of the game allowed you to build as thematic an army as you can currently build.

I find that for any faction that didn't have unique rules for their subfactions in previous iterations, 9th has a greater likelihood of fulfilling that thematic army. If you've always played space marines, sure, every edition has allowed your dudes to be your dudes.

Other factions also had good treatment in some editions... Just not in every edition.

In 9th, there has also been a shift in what it means to be thematic and customized; in days gone by, that feeling of "my dudes" was supplied almost entirely by load-out options. Now, however, some individuality may be provided bit by load out, but it also includes bespoke strats for specific subfactions and/ or units, by interactions with a specific character unit who was designed to work with the units in question, subfaction rules, etc. These things don't feel the same to people as load-out options did, because load-out options are visible on the model, but these other things aren't.

Another factor that influences my perception of customization is the fact that I'm a Crusade player, so each of my units has battle honour and scar slots for customization IN ADDITION to all the other customization options provided by the game.

I think that it is fair to say that regardless of which army you play, equipment customization in 9th is the worst it's ever been.

But I also think it's fair to say that if you play Crusade, regardless of which army you play, overall customization (ie. not just equipment) is better than it's ever been.

 Gert wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Of course it is subjective, i never suggest its not, i explicitly say its better because the old systems had more thematic, the newer system sucks for thematic and the original spirit of the game.

Modern 40k is better, if you want a tournament game that lacks soul and thematic interactions.
If you want more ture to the original intent of 40k, then older editions are better.

Yeah 40k felt really thematic when I lost 90% of my 5th/6th Ed games with my Orks because I wasn't running the one netlist that could win in a casual environment. Felt real thematic that my Deathskulls with all their Meks, Lootas and Looted Wagons got bodied every single game by someone who would just spam the best units in their Codex. People had a great time when all the Craftworlds players at our local decided to play thematic Iyanden armies and drop loads of tough elite units equipped with some of the hardest-hitting weapons in the game as troops.
Past editions of 40k were just as unbalanced and broken as the recent ones, the only difference is that Twitter, Facebook, and forums are a lot more widely used by people to complain about it.

"More thematic" has little to do with "more balanced" from a strictly results driven standpoint. Thus the disconnect between tourney winrate and "thematic". The prior system could have been balanced better and remain "thematic". Heck, the current system could be better balanced yet still be thematic, but GW isn't really doing so, instead appearing to make balancing choices which hurt "themeatic".