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.
2022/05/11 19:58:09
Subject: Old player here. Is 40k currently unplayable?
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.
Options existing in a codex means little. If they are so bad, no one runs them, or that they can't be put in to any existing good build, then they may as well not exist. Marines are a great example of that. If tomorrow someone removed almost everything out of the codex, bar blades, v.vets, mounted characters, and the obligatory troops and dreads, most people wouldn't notice all the options being gone. Other books are the same, that is why w40k is such a risky thing for new players, there is a ton of kits who just make trap options.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
2022/05/11 20:02:50
Subject: Old player here. Is 40k currently unplayable?
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.
Options existing in a codex means little. If they are so bad, no one runs them, or that they can't be put in to any existing good build, then they may as well not exist. Marines are a great example of that. If tomorrow someone removed almost everything out of the codex, bar blades, v.vets, mounted characters, and the obligatory troops and dreads, most people wouldn't notice all the options being gone. Other books are the same, that is why w40k is such a risky thing for new players, there is a ton of kits who just make trap options.
Dark reapers are another great example of this as well.
Exaulted sorcerers for tsons.
Predators, or really any T7 vehicle in the marine codex
To many unpainted models to count.
2022/05/11 20:12:43
Subject: Old player here. Is 40k currently unplayable?
Insectum7 wrote: "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".
Backspacehacker made the point that modern 40k is soulless and not thematic whereas older editions were thematic. I pointed out that it was exactly the same in the past and gave examples. I don't see how theme and balance can't be intertwined when one person can play a thematic army and get pounded into the dirt, yet another can do the same and win every game they play.
Are the Drukhari or Custodes lists winning tournaments not thematic to their respective backgrounds?
2022/05/11 20:14:59
Subject: Old player here. Is 40k currently unplayable?
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.
What are you on with? Lootas were one of the best units for Orks in 5th ed... Pull the other one.
Games Workshop Delenda Est.
Users on ignore- 53.
If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them.
2022/05/11 21:03:39
Subject: Old player here. Is 40k currently unplayable?
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."
I appreciate you taking the time to write that out.
If I were to summarize:
1 - customization to make an army that fit their idea of what their army should be
2 - systems that better represented the interactions ( melee specialists )
3 - armor facings & templates
4 - psychic powers not being just mortal wounds
1 - Customization like characters taking weapons? Aside from that the customization hasn't worsened. It got deeper. If I wanted to play Thousand Sons I took Ahriman and Rubrics as troops. Now I can take exalted that is deceitful or direct. I can make an army that jumps around the board or one that puts everything into punishing with spells or one that aims to be the most steadfast automatons out there. I can have a deeply prophetic sorcerer that can foresee combat and deftly avoid or if caught can slip in and out at will riding an exceptional disk of tzeentch.
There isn't anything I am missing about customization from old editions. In fact the options now are so far beyond better that I genuinely struggle to identify with this concern.
2 - I'm not sure why your barometer for something being good at melee is it hitting on 3s while the opponent hits on 5s. There are absolutely clear melee specialists in the game and they're not typically something you counter with basic melee unless they're a glass cannon. This feels more like you enjoyed being WS5+ and punching down by clearing all the models that were in combat with you before they got to strike.
3 - I fail to see how this is "Warhammer" than simply a preference for wargame mechanics.
4 - For much of 40K there wasn't even a psychic phase. In CSM 3.5 my spell options were -- corsucating flame, bolt of change, and twisting path -- two of which are basically "witchfire" spells. On the minor spells I had reroll witchfire, reroll hits, -1 LD to a psyker, strategy rating 3 ( not really a spell ), caster can't be charged without LD test.
7th wasn't much better with some disciplines almost entirely dedicated to witchfire spells, but there was utility. Too bad no one used anything except invisibility and shroud.
Now I have : a targeted reroll, fallback and shoot/charge, revive a model, mortal wounds, debuff move and advance, reroll wounds, warp units, debuff LD and A, -2 to psychic tests, mortal wounds, -1 to hit, mortal wounds, heal, invulnerable, mortal wounds, debuff S, buff S to a unit, prevent a unit from shooting outside 24", mortal wounds, strip invulns, mortal wounds, +1 to hit, buff S and A to a model, move twice, increase range, kill model, mortal wounds based on target unit's actions.
My warlord can redeploy models, move after overwatch, grant obsec, block rerolls against them, and so on.
The majority of a game is decided on the list building, not the table
For the 90% of factions this is unequivocally untrue and then it is also untrue for the top books when they have to face something on equal standing.
just boring net lists that focus on statistical outcomes
There are no net lists. People have more freedom than they ever have to build lists and better internal balance in their book to be empowered to do so.
All of this just seems like the old rose-tinted nostalgia glasses. Fear and Terror were neat, but just about everyone and their uncle found ways to avoid it when GW obliged with rules updates. There's never been more "Warhammer" in the system than there has been since 9th edition. Nids might be overpowered, but it is undeniable that their codex expertly encompasses the concept of their army as do the other 9th edition codexes.
2022/05/11 21:22:28
Subject: Old player here. Is 40k currently unplayable?
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.
It's also a fact that with wider rosters and dedicated subfactions' stuff (chapter traits, warlord traits, dedicated stratagems, dedicated relics) we know have way more possible combinations of options than any 3rd-7th codex had. Losing bikes or jet packs for a handful of characters isn't a big deal, really. The sheer number of available options is now so massive that one of the biggest complains from players is that they can't memorize everything from every faction, while they used to do it in previous editions.
Which is a huge point in favor for customized and thematic armies.
Insectum7 wrote: "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".
Backspacehacker made the point that modern 40k is soulless and not thematic whereas older editions were thematic. I pointed out that it was exactly the same in the past and gave examples. I don't see how theme and balance can't be intertwined when one person can play a thematic army and get pounded into the dirt, yet another can do the same and win every game they play.
Are the Drukhari or Custodes lists winning tournaments not thematic to their respective backgrounds?
Exactly, and I actually think that 40k has never been so thematic than it currently is.
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.
Options existing in a codex means little. If they are so bad, no one runs them, or that they can't be put in to any existing good build, then they may as well not exist. Marines are a great example of that. If tomorrow someone removed almost everything out of the codex, bar blades, v.vets, mounted characters, and the obligatory troops and dreads, most people wouldn't notice all the options being gone. Other books are the same, that is why w40k is such a risky thing for new players, there is a ton of kits who just make trap options.
Which is no different than missing tons of options for your characters from older editions when just a handful of them was actually worthy of consideration.
Insectum7 wrote: "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".
Backspacehacker made the point that modern 40k is soulless and not thematic whereas older editions were thematic. I pointed out that it was exactly the same in the past and gave examples. I don't see how theme and balance can't be intertwined when one person can play a thematic army and get pounded into the dirt, yet another can do the same and win every game they play.
Are the Drukhari or Custodes lists winning tournaments not thematic to their respective backgrounds?
Then you didn't undersrand my post.
There are numerous types of balance, and different metrics for each. Tourney win rate is an overall pretty lousy one in regards to "theme". For example, T3, 1W, Marines with Bolters at S2 12" range might be able to gain a 50% win rate in tournaments if they cost 5ppm. But it would be achieving a balance that is wildly off theme.
Lasguns autowounding Titans on 6s might help win rates. It's just a lousy way to achieve it. AoC might help Marines gain a few more % in tournies, but it further gaks on xenos infantry in an off theme way. GW has shown that it cares about balance, and has implemented mechanisms to achieve it, both of which are laudible. It just does so in a way that feels off theme. The emphasis is on the tourney result, and at the expense of theme/verisimilitude.
My only thing about customization is that it feel like there's no restrictions when I'm building my army, so customizing doesn't feel quite the same as when I go to WHFB 6th, which is my only other point of reference, and I can have units go from Special to Core, like my Skaven Warplock Jezzails for Clan Skryre, or Plague Monks, which also replace Clanrats for the core of the army, for Clan Pestilens. Because there's restrictions, such small changes make it feel like a big change, now that I can bring more Plague Monks, but am heavily limited on Weapon Teams and Warplock Jezzails.
In the same edition, Daemons and Chaos Warriors were the same codex, but were Core or Special units, depending on who your Lieutenant was, so the customization happened mostly with what you wanted your lieutenant to be and their gear, and they had a ridiculous amount of customization for that, included marks and god exclusive gear. In addition, most mortal units could take marks, and Chaos Warriors and Chaos Knights could be upgraded to Chosen. Throw in a few of your favorite deamons, and while not the most customizable part of your force, were nice to include.
The issue is big differences in how these two systems handle Troops/Core, in that a good chunk of non troop units would be considered core, but old 40k had a FoC, though I'm not sure how good. I will eventually get around to playing 3rd edition.
Also, Vampires are an army that has almost no customization for the forces, and only for Heroes and Lords, where Vampire Lords and Counts are extremely customizable, and Necromancers, Wight Lords, and Wraiths were somewhat. But you generally filled out the full roster of heroes and lords as Vampires, as zombies and skeletons were replaceable and summonable.
And, I know you could take other subfactions as Vampires, but I feel Sylvania and Necromancers were the only ones that really stood out to me, as your Vampire Lord already decided your armies theme. Getting a Sylvania army added extra units to pick from and some cool abilities, and Necromancers getting cheaper units to start with, but no access to non undead units, and no Vampires was interesting too.
Overall, I like restrictions, because they define my choices, more than I like absolute freedom. Once you add subfactions which can break certain restrictions, but lose out on other things, it feels more impactful than "Enemies get a -1 to hit when you're more than 12" away" and a relic and single stratagem.
‘What Lorgar’s fanatics have not seen is that these gods are nothing compared to the power and the majesty of the Machine-God. Already, members of our growing cult are using the grace of the Omnissiah – the true Omnissiah, not Terra’s false prophet – to harness the might of the warp. Geller fields, warp missiles, void shields, all these things you are familiar with. But their underlying principles can be turned to so much more. Through novel exploitations of these technologies we will gain mastery first over the energies of the empyrean, then over the lesser entities, until finally the very gods themselves will bend the knee and recognise the supremacy of the Machine-God"
- Heretek Ardim Protos in Titandeath by Guy Haley
2022/05/11 21:49:16
Subject: Old player here. Is 40k currently unplayable?
There are no net lists. People have more freedom than they ever have to build lists and better internal balance in their book to be empowered to do so.
Queue the observation that competetive Ork armies run the bare minimum number of Boyz.
And honestly the rest of the post sorta shows why it's fruitless to bother engaging. Like this is insanity:
"There isn't anything I am missing about customization from old editions. In fact the options now are so far beyond better that I genuinely struggle to identify with this concern."
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/11 21:51:37
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."
I appreciate you taking the time to write that out.
If I were to summarize:
1 - customization to make an army that fit their idea of what their army should be
2 - systems that better represented the interactions ( melee specialists )
3 - armor facings & templates
4 - psychic powers not being just mortal wounds
1 - Customization like characters taking weapons? Aside from that the customization hasn't worsened. It got deeper. If I wanted to play Thousand Sons I took Ahriman and Rubrics as troops. Now I can take exalted that is deceitful or direct. I can make an army that jumps around the board or one that puts everything into punishing with spells or one that aims to be the most steadfast automatons out there. I can have a deeply prophetic sorcerer that can foresee combat and deftly avoid or if caught can slip in and out at will riding an exceptional disk of tzeentch.
There isn't anything I am missing about customization from old editions. In fact the options now are so far beyond better that I genuinely struggle to identify with this concern.
2 - I'm not sure why your barometer for something being good at melee is it hitting on 3s while the opponent hits on 5s. There are absolutely clear melee specialists in the game and they're not typically something you counter with basic melee unless they're a glass cannon. This feels more like you enjoyed being WS5+ and punching down by clearing all the models that were in combat with you before they got to strike.
3 - I fail to see how this is "Warhammer" than simply a preference for wargame mechanics.
4 - For much of 40K there wasn't even a psychic phase. In CSM 3.5 my spell options were -- corsucating flame, bolt of change, and twisting path -- two of which are basically "witchfire" spells. On the minor spells I had reroll witchfire, reroll hits, -1 LD to a psyker, strategy rating 3 ( not really a spell ), caster can't be charged without LD test.
7th wasn't much better with some disciplines almost entirely dedicated to witchfire spells, but there was utility. Too bad no one used anything except invisibility and shroud.
Now I have : a targeted reroll, fallback and shoot/charge, revive a model, mortal wounds, debuff move and advance, reroll wounds, warp units, debuff LD and A, -2 to psychic tests, mortal wounds, -1 to hit, mortal wounds, heal, invulnerable, mortal wounds, debuff S, buff S to a unit, prevent a unit from shooting outside 24", mortal wounds, strip invulns, mortal wounds, +1 to hit, buff S and A to a model, move twice, increase range, kill model, mortal wounds based on target unit's actions.
My warlord can redeploy models, move after overwatch, grant obsec, block rerolls against them, and so on.
The majority of a game is decided on the list building, not the table
For the 90% of factions this is unequivocally untrue and then it is also untrue for the top books when they have to face something on equal standing.
just boring net lists that focus on statistical outcomes
There are no net lists. People have more freedom than they ever have to build lists and better internal balance in their book to be empowered to do so.
All of this just seems like the old rose-tinted nostalgia glasses. Fear and Terror were neat, but just about everyone and their uncle found ways to avoid it when GW obliged with rules updates. There's never been more "Warhammer" in the system than there has been since 9th edition. Nids might be overpowered, but it is undeniable that their codex expertly encompasses the concept of their army as do the other 9th edition codexes.
#1 yeah like how i modified all my guardsmen to have camo cloaks and now doctrines no longer exist, I can't take veterans as troops and suddenly my veteran army based around aircav literally cannot be played in a matched play environment.... Oh also the vendetta is no longer in the codex either.
#3 yeah i tend to prefer wargame mechanics in my war game.
what a load of horse gak.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/11 21:59:33
2022/05/11 22:12:03
Subject: Old player here. Is 40k currently unplayable?
In some ways, adding sub-faction rules made the game narratively smaller, not bigger.
"This is the 18th Trynzendian Foot Horde"
"Wow, what's their fluff?"
"They're badass chem troopers from a volcano world who ride around in chimeras and heavily sealed and armored leman Russes"
"What rules do they use?"
"Er... catachan? Maybe Pyromaniacs and the Lord's Approval if I really hate myself?"
Crusade has done this as well:
"this is the Order of the Luminous Beacon. Their tenets of service to the emperor are to live humbly, to aid the lost, and to scourge evil"
"What are their goals?"
"Well one of them is designated to be a Living Saint and wants to be one really badly"
Back in earlier editions, you may not have had sub faction rules, but you could use the generic rules to fluff out your army:
The 18th Trynzendian spends lots of points upgrading it's chimeras and Russes with Rough Terrain Modifications and Extra Armor, all it's troops have Chem Inhalers and Carapace Armor, etc. It would be much easier to reflect the 18th Trynzendian in the 4th edition book than in the 8th, even with sub-faction rules.
The Order of the Luminous Beacon can ally with Imperial Guard modeled not as a cohesive unit but a ragged, ill-fitting band of misfits (collected by the kindness and mercy of the Order's tenets) without any penalties, and didn't have to bring a Living Saint (or someone aspiring to be one). It would be much easier to reflect the Order of the Luminous Beacon in a 4th edition narrative campaign than in a Crusade one, even with updated crusade rules.
EDIT:
I also think we should stop lumping 3rd - 7th as a monolith, because IMHO people lose perspective. In this post I am referencing 4th.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2022/05/11 22:19:06
2022/05/11 22:43:34
Subject: Old player here. Is 40k currently unplayable?
JEREMSTER wrote: I've been playing off and on since 2000 I even played the Vegas tournament back in 2017.
I've always been decent, I don't always play min/maxed lists but play I play the objectives well and usually keep things competitive.
I just played my first game in 2022 playing my mechanized Ork list against my brothers new eldar list. I've played his army a hundred times before with space wolves/death guard/tau and orks, so I thought I had a pretty good feel for it.
But NO.
It wasn't even fun. My orks needed 6's to hit anything. His Eldar all hit me on 2+ and his Wasps(I think) toasted my battle wagon with only 3 hits.
I felt absolutely helpless with no chance of even keeping up on objective scoring.
I remember the old days of busted eldar with wave serpent spam and mass scatter lasers, that was broken, and this was 10x worse.
What gives?
Modern 40k, is imo, the worst its ever been in terms of the spirit of the game. Even compared to the insanity of late 7th, 9th is worse.
9th ed is basically the most souless interpretation of Warhammer i have ever seen. There is no flavor to it, no thematic battles, no coming back from the brink in a match, its all very sterile.
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.
Yeah nothing says a game about dramatic battles in the 41st Millennium than the IGOUGO turn structure LOL Take off the rose tinted glasses goddamn
IGOUGO is a totally seprate take on the topic, if you wanna discuss about whats better that would be suited for another thread because its key component of the game.
IGOUGO does not make or break a thematic system, there are better versions of player interaction, there are worse.
Yes it's thematic your army sits there and does nothing at all LOL Core mechanics go hand in hand with whether a game is thematic
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/11 22:48:23
2022/05/11 22:49:28
Subject: Old player here. Is 40k currently unplayable?
Unit1126PLL wrote: In some ways, adding sub-faction rules made the game narratively smaller, not bigger.
It REALLY didn't since nothing is stopping you from going outside Catachan rules. My Marines go with whatever rules fit the army I want to construct.
The subfaction rules are nice, although still pale in comparison to 4th ed Doctrines, or numerous other optiins available prior to the no-model-no-rules paradigm.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/11 22:50:13
Core mechanics go hand in hand with a game thematic yes. I never said warhammer as it is, IS the best it can be by thematic standards.;
What i HAVE been saying, is that the current iteration of 40k is far and away much less thematic then it was in the past.
You seem to be under the assumption i have been saying that 40k is the most thematic game its been and it could not be more thematic then it was in the past. Which is not a correct assumption.
40k in the past was FAR more thematic then it is currently and it could be even better.
Unit1126PLL wrote: In some ways, adding sub-faction rules made the game narratively smaller, not bigger.
It REALLY didn't since nothing is stopping you from going outside Catachan rules. My Marines go with whatever rules fit the army I want to construct.
The subfaction rules are nice, although still pale in comparison to 4th ed Doctrines, or numerous other optiins available prior to the no-model-no-rules paradigm.
This is why i love the Rites of war from HH. They are like the best middle ground for all of them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/11 22:52:50
To many unpainted models to count.
2022/05/11 22:55:57
Subject: Old player here. Is 40k currently unplayable?
I just played my first game in 2022 playing my mechanized Ork list against my brothers new eldar list. I've played his army a hundred times before with space wolves/death guard/tau and orks, so I thought I had a pretty good feel for it.
This is more of a problem with the lackluster Ork codex sadly. Sure, when they first dropped they had those crazy buggy and aircraft lists. As soon as those were taken away, the Ork codex sucked. There's no synergy between different unit types. The typical Ork vehicles are largely bad. There's no real ability to take hordes. Dakka weapons were a side-grade at best, and a nerf at worst for most units. Dakka weapons should have became a weapon ability not a weapon type.
The new Ork codex was so lazy they didn't even add Custom Kultures.
2022/05/11 23:00:56
Subject: Old player here. Is 40k currently unplayable?
MinscS2 wrote: 40k is in a great state if you're playing mainly to have fun and aren't overly competitive. I have fun playing my (gakky) IG against my two regular Nid-opponents.
40k is probably horrible if both players are very competitive and one brings a list that's not up to speed against list that is.
This has been my experience as well.
From what I've seen, there tends to be a lot more silver bullet matchups, where one side is pretty much just dead, which sucks (especially if someone is min/maxing). However, the sheer variety of what you can build and how you can field your army means that (provided you've got a fair selection of models and a 9th edition dex), you can usually tailor your army to match up better against things you are having a lot of trouble with after a little practice.
Armies:
2022/05/11 23:19:06
Subject: Old player here. Is 40k currently unplayable?
MinscS2 wrote: 40k is in a great state if you're playing mainly to have fun and aren't overly competitive. I have fun playing my (gakky) IG against my two regular Nid-opponents.
40k is probably horrible if both players are very competitive and one brings a list that's not up to speed against list that is.
This has been my experience as well.
From what I've seen, there tends to be a lot more silver bullet matchups, where one side is pretty much just dead, which sucks (especially if someone is min/maxing). However, the sheer variety of what you can build and how you can field your army means that (provided you've got a fair selection of models and a 9th edition dex), you can usually tailor your army to match up better against things you are having a lot of trouble with after a little practice.
SO this is confusing to me, because what you just described, "You can field your army means that ... you can usually tailor your army to match up better against things you are having toruble with " Thats literally one of the key components of being a competative player. List tailoring is generally regarded and being a competitive move and frowned upon.
To many unpainted models to count.
2022/05/11 23:32:22
Subject: Old player here. Is 40k currently unplayable?
Backspacehacker wrote: There is no flavor to it, no thematic battles, no coming back from the brink in a match, its all very sterile.
Because their focus is on competitive tournament play. It's how we end up in a world where symmetrical terrain is becoming the norm.
Insectum7 wrote: Losing a turn because of a failed Morale check is not Damage In/Out. It's effectively a suppression. Likewise pinning. Sweeping Advance resulting in a unit loss is damage, for sure, but it's an alternate route to get there in a way that gives different units different weaknesses, thus diversifying the available units in the game and also diversifying the tactics required to defeat them. All of which are good things.
Unlike the current "morale" system which, as I've said on many occasions, is about as far removed from a morale system as one could be, and is in effect a 'lose more' mechanic that punishes players for losing models by making them lose more models. It's horrid.
Having said that, ERJAK, despite his irrepressible (and typical) ITG'ing in this thread, is right about Sweeping Advances though. They were a blanket rule that didn't scale in any realistic way, so you could have hard-as-nails elite units completely wiped out by pathetic infantry types (the classic max-squad Chaos Terminators caught by under strength Gretchin example) just because of a few bad dice rolls. It was too all-or-nothing.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/05/11 23:40:31
Unit1126PLL wrote: In some ways, adding sub-faction rules made the game narratively smaller, not bigger.
It REALLY didn't since nothing is stopping you from going outside Catachan rules. My Marines go with whatever rules fit the army I want to construct.
I even put in my post an example of going outside the Catachan rules.
Pray tell what rules would you give the 18th Trynzendian that are more thematic than my 4th edition examples?
Well the thing here is that you don't need Carapace armor on everything as you aren't completely ignored by even Heavy Bolters, so honestly that's kinda whatever. For heavier armor, you got me, but terrain modifications is easily done with the upgrade so you don't degrade in movement as you lose wounds.
Like, honestly, you legit lost nothing thanks to 8th/9th, and that's not even considering what a new codex might give you either.
2022/05/12 00:13:31
Subject: Old player here. Is 40k currently unplayable?
Unit1126PLL wrote: In some ways, adding sub-faction rules made the game narratively smaller, not bigger.
"This is the 18th Trynzendian Foot Horde"
"Wow, what's their fluff?"
"They're badass chem troopers from a volcano world who ride around in chimeras and heavily sealed and armored leman Russes"
"What rules do they use?"
"Er... catachan? Maybe Pyromaniacs and the Lord's Approval if I really hate myself?"
Crusade has done this as well:
"this is the Order of the Luminous Beacon. Their tenets of service to the emperor are to live humbly, to aid the lost, and to scourge evil"
"What are their goals?"
"Well one of them is designated to be a Living Saint and wants to be one really badly"
I've noticed that parallel as well- and also how GW has taken the inverse approach with the mission/objective design, relevant to earlier discussion in this thread. You see people argue that bare-bones missions and objectives support narrative play because you can apply your own layer of meaning to them... and then turn around and praise the highly specific subfaction and Crusade rules because they're narratively themed (so long as your intended narrative fits their constraints).
I'm honestly okay with either approach, I just wish GW would pick one or the other. A bare-bones set of rules that is lightweight and lets you fill in the blanks and build your narrative, or one that implements very specific narrative-oriented mechanics while accepting the inevitable bloat.
Daedalus81 wrote: 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.
Spoiler:
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."
I only regret that I have but one exalt to give for this post.
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.
Options existing in a codex means little. If they are so bad, no one runs them, or that they can't be put in to any existing good build, then they may as well not exist. Marines are a great example of that. If tomorrow someone removed almost everything out of the codex, bar blades, v.vets, mounted characters, and the obligatory troops and dreads, most people wouldn't notice all the options being gone. Other books are the same, that is why w40k is such a risky thing for new players, there is a ton of kits who just make trap options.
Dark reapers are another great example of this as well.
Exaulted sorcerers for tsons. Predators, or really any T7 vehicle in the marine codex
???? Exalted sorcerers are autoincludes
2022/05/12 00:33:42
Subject: Old player here. Is 40k currently unplayable?
Insectum7 wrote: Losing a turn because of a failed Morale check is not Damage In/Out. It's effectively a suppression. Likewise pinning. Sweeping Advance resulting in a unit loss is damage, for sure, but it's an alternate route to get there in a way that gives different units different weaknesses, thus diversifying the available units in the game and also diversifying the tactics required to defeat them. All of which are good things.
Unlike the current "morale" system which, as I've said on many occasions, is about as far removed from a morale system as one could be, and is in effect a 'lose more' mechanic that punishes players for losing models by making them lose more models. It's horrid.
Having said that, ERJAK, despite his irrepressible (and typical) ITG'ing in this thread, is right about Sweeping Advances though. They were a blanket rule that didn't scale in any realistic way, so you could have hard-as-nails elite units completely wiped out by pathetic infantry types (the classic max-squad Chaos Terminators caught by under strength Gretchin example) just because of a few bad dice rolls. It was too all-or-nothing.
Sure. Like I've mentioned in a previous post the resolution around Sweeping Advance could have been fine-tuned a bit. But it was still a better paradigm/directiin than what we have now.
That said you would have needed a string of astoundingly horrific rolling to be in a situation where grots ran down Chaos Terminators. But Sweeping Advance would have made it much more likely that a few CSM Terminators rout and wipe out even a large unit of grots.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/12 00:37:13
Insectum7 wrote: Queue the observation that competetive Ork armies run the bare minimum number of Boyz.
That isn't a net list.
And honestly the rest of the post sorta shows why it's fruitless to bother engaging. Like this is insanity:
"There isn't anything I am missing about customization from old editions. In fact the options now are so far beyond better that I genuinely struggle to identify with this concern."
The feeling is mutual, I guess. Some people can't stop living in the past and there isn't anything necessarily wrong with that, but it's hardly an objective take on the current situation to say there is less customization.
2022/05/12 00:53:35
Subject: Old player here. Is 40k currently unplayable?
Insectum7 wrote: Like I've mentioned in a previous post the resolution around Sweeping Advance could have been fine-tuned a bit.
I want to point out that GW also swung back and forth on this. I remember reading 4th Ed designer's notes where it said something to the effect of 'now that Sweeping Advance just keeps a unit locked in combat, you'll no longer have the situation of a bad roll resulting in a lucky Termagant running down a whole squad of Tactical Marines'. Then in 5th it was back to instant death for the fleeing squad.
And like, yeah, fair enough; the simple implementation of the fleeing unit being totally wiped out did lead to some head-scratcher moments. But there are certainly other ways to do it. The core idea of having morale failure in melee be a really bad thing and noticeably different from a morale failure due to ranged combat, making melee a particularly lethal tool when employed correctly, was a solid concept that just had some fringe edge cases to work out.
Sledgehammer wrote: #1 yeah like how i modified all my guardsmen to have camo cloaks and now doctrines no longer exist, I can't take veterans as troops and suddenly my veteran army based around aircav literally cannot be played in a matched play environment.... Oh also the vendetta is no longer in the codex either.
#3 yeah i tend to prefer wargame mechanics in my war game.
what a load of horse gak.
Taking veterans as troops is your bar for customization? Ok. I'm also not sure why the Vendetta not being in the book prohibits you from using it.
IG have the oldest codex that doesn't even approach any of the 9th edition glow ups and is approaching 5 years old.
I can see why you liked vehicle facings though.
2022/05/12 01:09:53
Subject: Old player here. Is 40k currently unplayable?
H.B.M.C. wrote: Unlike the current "morale" system which, as I've said on many occasions, is about as far removed from a morale system as one could be, and is in effect a 'lose more' mechanic that punishes players for losing models by making them lose more models. It's horrid.
Having said that, ERJAK, despite his irrepressible (and typical) ITG'ing in this thread, is right about Sweeping Advances though. They were a blanket rule that didn't scale in any realistic way, so you could have hard-as-nails elite units completely wiped out by pathetic infantry types (the classic max-squad Chaos Terminators caught by under strength Gretchin example) just because of a few bad dice rolls. It was too all-or-nothing
Yep. Morale should be more akin to losing ground than just losing models. If those models can't disengage and retreat then you lose additional models.
2022/05/12 01:10:05
Subject: Old player here. Is 40k currently unplayable?
Daedalus81 wrote: Taking veterans as troops is your bar for customization? Ok.
That's a pretty low bar, Daedalus. Guard regiments composed of hardened veterans (see: Tanith) have been a thing in lore for a very long time, used to be supported in rules, and are exactly the sort of thing that 9th's free-form army composition rules should facilitate. Airmobile like Elysians are no longer Matched Play legal. Light infantry don't exist. Grenadiers don't exist. Carapace armor isn't a thing. There's a lot of stuff that Guard used to be able to take that they can't; being able to either copy one of the 'big' regiments or pick two crappy traits from a list doesn't really suffice as a substitute.
And personally I tend to think that tanks scooting sideways across the battlefield while firing out of their antennae is kind of stupid, but YMMV.
.
