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.

LoreSeeker wrote:
Pretty much asking the question in the thread title.

I love the 40K setting, but going by what I see online it sounds like codex creep is still happening (I heard about the Leagues of Votann week 1 nerfs), there may or may not be a 10th edition coming out soon, and in general it kind of sounds like a mess.

So is the game worth getting back into right now?

It really depends on what kind of gamer you are.

Are you playing with family and close friends?, a regular group at a FLGS? a GW store? are you more interested in building/painting/converting or playing?

If you are just into the universe and do not what to spend a fortune, there are all sorts of things you can do

.you can play an older edition with friends where you can get the used codexes online for super cheap and never have to worry about armies or models every being yeated.

.You can use 3rd party rules like one page rules-grim dark future

.You can also find all sorts of 3rd party or used minis online from various sources rather 3d printed or loose minis from stores that buy and re-sell old collections for good prices.

If you want to play at a GW store/pickup games with strangers or play the most current edition you are in for a roller coaster ride. GW is in a 3 year business model where they change editions and make you re-buy all your rule books each edition including the updates every few months within editions and you will be paying premium prices for GW brand name minis. i used to think the land raider crusader was a bit spendy when i bought mine for just under $50, the current price is $110.

GW has not been good at rules writing for a very long time when it comes to 40k at this point it appears the sales team is running the design department where they do not even understand how the games works hence the Votann nerf, and the previous admech nerf or the 8th ed iron hands nerf etc...

While most of the minis are good kits that look great it depends on what you really want out of the game. after over 20 years i bailed out and will only play older editions of 40K or specialst games like BFG from GWs past. i do not need the frustration of chasing the squirrel that is current 40K

LoreSeeker wrote:
So it's not just "this many points for this many models" type list building? Sounds unnecessarily restrictive.

I mean, is the illusion of 'total freedom' much better when you know thst every wargame out there ultimately comes down to a handful of builds, despite the theoretical 'millions' of builds out there?

Better balance and better game structure needs more restrictions, not less. And gw isn't thr only company stepping away from 'traditional' list building approaches (x points for y models with a total of zero points), at least for some of their games.

Honestly, coming from a warmachine background, kill team is absolutely fine in terms of its 'restrictions' and it just means less book keeping and less faff. Basically its 'You have 6 reivers. Sarge gets a knife and bolter, the others are either bolters and fists or pistols and knives'. Very easy to work with.

We're having an absolute blast with it right now. And its cheap to buy into and the rules are quite solid. Box of reivers and you're good to go.

I'd argue that more freedom better encapsulates the "your dudes" aspect that Warhammer used to be about. I don't really care if my army preforms as well as Guardsmen with Plasma spam from old Kill Team, I just care that I can have Crusaders, Ogryn, and Guardsmen in a Kill Team.

Infinity is better balanced, a better game, and gives more freedom than new Kill Team. Hell, Warcry is better than Kill Team.

If you want a 40k skirmish game, Necromunda is my recommendation. If you want a skirmish game where you can use 40k models, but have to be mindful, Infinity.

If you're interested in playing Black Templars, for example, you could play the Military Orders, and used Hospitaliers and Teutonic Knights, and even throw in a Knight of Montessa for a bike mounted Marine. You could include Mercenaries as Guardsmen.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
I'd argue that more freedom better encapsulates the "your dudes" aspect that Warhammer used to be about. I don't really care if my army preforms as well as Guardsmen with Plasma spam from old Kill Team, I just care that I can have Crusaders, Ogryn, and Guardsmen in a Kill Team.

Fair. I'm not against expansions in the future to introduce those new units etc but I do think pragmatism does require some limitations to what can realistically be allowed into a skirmish game, especially at the introduction stage of a new game. 'Scale' and 'scope' has a far bigger role to play in unbalancing a game than most folks realise.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:


Infinity is better balanced, a better game, and gives more freedom than new Kill Team. Hell, Warcry is better than Kill Team.

Infinity is probably the most technically brilliant wargame out there. And undeniably has some of the best models in the industry. I disagree that its a strictly 'better' game/experience in a lot of ways. Make no mistake, I played n2 and really enjoyed it. That said, theae days it wrecks my head every time I even try and play it. It's one of those games where you need to constantly be aware of a million things and to be aware of another million intricacies that are going on. The 'knowledge burden' is huge. Fair play if you like that kind of thing, and once upon a time, I did too. But these days I just do t have the RAM to keep it all in my mind and much prefer a 'simpler' game. Kill team gives me everything I need, infinity in comparison, as much as i respect it and adore the models, gives me a headache.

As to warcry - fun game. Shares a lot of dna with the new Kill team. Love the warbands. I enjoy it a lot as well but imo Kill team is a bit more 'polished'. Or maybe i just prefer thr space fantasy of 40k? Warcry needs a few tweaks imo (2nd ed is out now, yes? Might need to check it) and the others in my group.didnt take to it as much as i did, but its a solid game.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:


If you want a 40k skirmish game, Necromunda is my recommendation. If you want a skirmish game where you can use 40k models, but have to be mindful, Infinity.

I can't disagree with this at all. Necromunda is fantastic. We prefer the 90s version though with some modern imports (modern differences between auto/las primarily). Imo oldcromunda was a bit simpler and more straight forward and therefore more to out tastes. I find newcromunda ends up being a bit.... chaotic. That said we've played both and have had great fun with each.

As to infinity - as above technically brilliant game. Technically very intricate - for us, overwhelmingly so - but if you're into that kind of thing it's a great game to play. But it's a shame to use 40k models when the infinity ones are as incredible as they are.

I disagree that its a strictly 'better' game/experience in a lot of ways. Make no mistake, I played n2 and really enjoyed it. That said, theae days it wrecks my head every time I even try and play it.

That is because N2 was the best version of the game. they have GW'd it as well- N4 is garbage. they have moved the hyperfocus to tournament play reducing it to 3 turns, reducing the map size, introducing command tokens (well that started in N3), changing the crit, and the suppression fire system (ruining them), overcomplicating link team and hacking rules with bloat etc.... i don't mind the new weapon profiles introduced in N3 but the core rules is N2 or nothing for me.

I hardly play it anymore myself (mostly because of everything else i play and the table set up time) but i still have all my minis enough to make 4 different 300 point lists.

I mean, is the illusion of 'total freedom' much better when you know thst every wargame out there ultimately comes down to a handful of builds, despite the theoretical 'millions' of builds out there?

I think that really depends on the player. when i play MK III WM/H i have all sorts of weird build ideas and refuse to play theme lists, and our 40K group plays "oldhammer" so we can choose any codex between 3rd and 7th to play with making the build ideas limitless (we are testing out some weird ideas right now with blood angels) without caring about edition power listing or meta or codex creep.

40K is very fun right now.

In 8th edition they suddenly started caring about game balance. And now in 9th edtion they are much better at it. There is some problems stil (looking at you flamers of tzeench.)

I have been playing 40k on and of and it is much better when they care about game balance. The only thing I do not like now is how long some games take, but it is also fun.

So if you like the toys, you can get those at any time.

The game? Well others have pointed out the alternatives. In my main club at least, the 40k setting, spin offs and collecting is going strong. Not sure if I have seen the game played more than once or twice now for a month by a 20 strong club with a bunch of necromunda and heresy being played instead. We have tourny fans who continue to go, but they seem to be playing there instead.

If you like 'gamey' win conditions (half a dozen things to do as opposed to 'take that hill') and complicated (not complex) rule interactions you may enjoy it if you have good opponents. Lots do. I think though it has left the wargamers and casual players behind and only those really into that style of game are playing it now.

Lammia wrote:
Well, here's GWs compeditive data since the last update. Something they have only started to properly gather in the last 12-24 months..

Though that chart doesn't show up whole truth and you use lists that use about tenth of codex. Vary from it and your winrate will pummel down to hell.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
I'd argue that more freedom better encapsulates the "your dudes" aspect that Warhammer used to be about.

Exactly. I want my army to be my army, not a cookie cutter copy with a different name and paint scheme.

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:
Is 40k worth getting into? Not really. It's a very bad game with nonexistent balance and mechanics that are a textbook on poor game design. Unless you're already falling victim to the sunk cost fallacy and have a lot invested in it you should probably stay away. If you really want to play in the 40k universe Kill Team is a far better game in every way.

Is 40k worth getting into right now? I suppose so. If your choice is right now vs. later then you might as well do it now, there's no sign that GW is ever going to fix the core issues with 40k so waiting a while doesn't help you at all.

Basically this. There's a lot of better games on the market.

There's an off chance that the new edition will actually make things noticeably better, but it's a slim one. I have only witnessed it once in my career with GW games, with the switch from 5th to 6th edition of Warhammer Fantasy. Other than that, it's just shuffling what is broken and what is kind of functional, with an occassional distaster of an edition now and again.

tneva82 wrote:

Lammia wrote:
Well, here's GWs compeditive data since the last update. Something they have only started to properly gather in the last 12-24 months..

Though that chart doesn't show up whole truth and you use lists that use about tenth of codex. Vary from it and your winrate will pummel down to hell.

And that 10th will vary depending on what's in the local scene. There's so much we can't say to them until they dive in.

Depends, do you have people to play with? What kind of gaming experience are you interested in?

Currently I am having a blast playing crusade and I have a very friendly group of regulars to game with. Two are fairly competitive but will help you out as you game, one in particular keeps up with the rules updates. Frankly you can get by with the rulebook missions, your codex, the FAQs and the dataslate. May seem like a bit much but as you game it goes smoother and smoother. If you are purely competitive minded you may get burned out as the updates can be a lot and knowing the key strategems for every faction can be overwhelming. If you play random people at a game store I'd check it out as the gamestore scene can vary from store to store. If you get in now I'd source the rules and get the models built and painted as I wait for 10th to commit to a rules buy in myself.

Personally I want to see cool models on a fantastical board performing in my mind cinematic feats, the 40k rules do that well enough and if not taken seriously can be fairly fun.

LoreSeeker wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
I'd argue that more freedom better encapsulates the "your dudes" aspect that Warhammer used to be about.

Exactly. I want my army to be my army, not a cookie cutter copy with a different name and paint scheme.

I totally get wanting my army to be 'mine'.frankly though, I doubt anyone will find some build in any game that is 'unique' to them.

Paint scheme, modelling and conversion work is how you make things truly stand out and 'yours' imo, rather than some combination of guns and swords.

More 'limited' loadout options =/= cookie cutter.

That said if something truly unique and individualistic is what you're after, where every model looks different and can be equipped differently, you really need to look at necromunda more than the mass battle 40k game.

Deadnight wrote:

LoreSeeker wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
I'd argue that more freedom better encapsulates the "your dudes" aspect that Warhammer used to be about.

Exactly. I want my army to be my army, not a cookie cutter copy with a different name and paint scheme.

I totally get wanting my army to be 'mine'.frankly though, I doubt anyone will find some build in any game that is 'unique' to them.

Paint scheme, modelling and conversion work is how you make things truly stand out and 'yours' imo, rather than some combination of guns and swords.

More 'limited' loadout options =/= cookie cutter.

That said if something truly unique and individualistic is what you're after, where every model looks different and can be equipped differently, you really need to look at necromunda more than the mass battle 40k game.

Tbh I think that's a pretty lousy post. Why would you not expect people to express themselves through choice of army, units and gear? I know we've got an all Gretchin army person on the board. Another I recall liked the multi-baneblade build. I personally like playing an all Tyranid Warrior army. In prior (glorious) times personalizing your Chaos Lord with all manner of potential upgrades was a hobby unto itself!

40k should be all about building your personalized army, and ideally the game would be deep enough and balanced well enough to allow a lot of those "personal" builds to function.

LoreSeeker wrote:
Pretty much asking the question in the thread title.

I love the 40K setting, but going by what I see online it sounds like codex creep is still happening (I heard about the Leagues of Votann week 1 nerfs), there may or may not be a 10th edition coming out soon, and in general it kind of sounds like a mess.

So is the game worth getting back into right now?

Did you play before or would this be your first foray into the game? Related to that, are you part of an existing gaming group that goes between game systems or would you be looking for pickup games "out in the wild?"

If you love the setting and are hoping to get games in with relative strangers then now is a good time to get into 40K. Codex creep is a thing, but I don't see it as an obstacle. Bad matchup happens, but are you looking to go to tournaments right away?

It sounds like a new edition will be coming along, so maybe don't get the big main rule book. If the next mission pack includes the core rules then grab that in January and away you go.

What faction would you be interested in playing?

I have played 40k before, but not for years (I think 8th edition was the last time I picked up a codex; last time I actually played was before that). There's a game store nearby that I'm looking to play games in just to get out of the house more, which is why I'm considering my options of game to play (40k or AoS).

Even if I do this casually, I'm competitive enough that I wouldn't find it fun being on the losing side every single time, so lack of game balance would be a downside in my opinion.

LoreSeeker wrote:
I have played 40k before, but not for years (I think 8th edition was the last time I picked up a codex; last time I actually played was before that). There's a game store nearby that I'm looking to play games in just to get out of the house more, which is why I'm considering my options of game to play (40k or AoS).

Even if I do this casually, I'm competitive enough that I wouldn't find it fun being on the losing side every single time, so lack of game balance would be a downside in my opinion.

I play both 40K and AoS. I am playing more AoS this year, but I still play in 40K local tourneys. If you already have an army (or armies) for 40K then getting back into the game should be fairly simple.

AoS does some things in a way that I would like 40K to adopt (Battle Tactics instead of Secondaries and Command Abilities instead of Stratagems).

Are you able to determine what the local scene is like at your FLGS? That is more important to your situation than the global meta or the impressions of Dakka.

Hope you can have fun.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

Are you able to determine what the local scene is like at your FLGS? That is more important to your situation than the global meta or the impressions of Dakka.

To hear the store employees tell it, AoS and 40k are on about equal footing as far as player numbers.

Is that sales? Or game night tables? It may come down to visiting in the time you want to plar regularly before buying in and seeing what the crowed is like

Lammia wrote:
Is that sales? Or game night tables? It may come down to visiting in the time you want to plar regularly before buying in and seeing what the crowed is like

Player numbers. No info on how regularly they play.

Meet the crowd, would be my advice then, learn how Meta they are and if they are people you don't hate spending 3 hours regularly with. You can look at what to get from there

LoreSeeker wrote:

Lammia wrote:
Is that sales? Or game night tables? It may come down to visiting in the time you want to plar regularly before buying in and seeing what the crowed is like

Player numbers. No info on how regularly they play.

Does the store have gaming area or where they play?

Anyway go get a look at gaming nights(both 40k/aos if they are separate days like here). See what sort of group you are. If both sell same but one has almost no reqular players then the other might be safer choise. Of course you might help get other regular by being active player there

Worth taking a look at how active and what sort of players you have locally. Better safe than sorry.

tneva82 wrote:

LoreSeeker wrote:

Lammia wrote:
Is that sales? Or game night tables? It may come down to visiting in the time you want to plar regularly before buying in and seeing what the crowed is like

Player numbers. No info on how regularly they play.

Does the store have gaming area or where they play?

Oh yeah, they've got plenty of gaming tables. In fact, they're expanding the store into the next property over. Lots of terrain too, for all sorts of settings (40k, AoS, Star Wars).

They've got a Discord server that I keep forgetting to join. I'll have to see what the usual 40k/AoS nights are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So I just looked at their website. No Discord link I could find, but I did see their regular weekly schedule.

Turns out 40k night is on one of my usual days off, while Age of Sigmar night isn't...

If it's not a GW store, go check out what other games are being played, too.

Nothing in this thread matters even a tiny bit as much as you going and hanging out for a few of all the game nights and just watching people play, introducing yourself, and having a few conversations. If you plan on playing in any sort of local scene, the scene itself matters far more than any individual game.

Outside of solo gaming, it's a social hobby. That's the first element you should be feeling out.

Lammia wrote:
Well, here's GWs compeditive data since the last update. Something they have only started to properly gather in the last 12-24 months.



We all know what is going on in Tzeentch/Daemons results and going off what happened last time GW talked about a problem like this, I expect a 80-100% increase in Flamers' point costs in January next year; as a bare minimum. Wouldn't even be surprised if the took a bigger kick.

I wonder if they're going to give a look at the underperforming units in Chaos Daemons too...

Hecaton wrote:


I wonder if they're going to give a look at the underperforming units in Chaos Daemons too...

The most underperforming units in Chaos Daemons are still 500% better then most of the stuff in GSC, Marines, etc..

There're far more urgent things to fix.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Hecaton wrote:


I wonder if they're going to give a look at the underperforming units in Chaos Daemons too...

The most underperforming units in Chaos Daemons are still 500% better then most of the stuff in GSC, Marines, etc..

There're far more urgent things to fix.

You sure about that?
Have you seen Plaguebearers?

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Hecaton wrote:


I wonder if they're going to give a look at the underperforming units in Chaos Daemons too...

The most underperforming units in Chaos Daemons are still 500% better then most of the stuff in GSC, Marines, etc..

There're far more urgent things to fix.

As someone who plays GSC and Nurgle Daemons I can say without a doubt you have no idea what you are talking about. Don't get me wrong, GSC are in a bad way and Tzeentch/Khorne are still in an OKAY place without Flamers but the worst units on Daemons are so much worse than GSC.

But they are run alongside flamers which makes them better then majority, if not everything, that armies like marines or gsc can run.

Nurgle demons are only bad, when someone litteraly wants to run just them. And even then it is just their troops, which are the real bad thing in the codex.

Non of the bad armies right now, have a carry like flamers. And the christmas update in january probably won't be cutting GSC units cost in half and marines by 1/3ed. And we already got rules changes for some of the armies, so the future looks bleak for them. Unless GW somehow fits a GSC, Marines etc codex in to 9th.

Karol wrote:
But they are run alongside flamers which makes them better then majority, if not everything, that armies like marines or gsc can run.

The entire context of this discussion is about what will happen to Daemons when Flamers get nerfed, hence Hecaton asking if they'll "look at the underperforming Chaos Daemons units too" (i.e. in addition to the overperformers).

It's the same problem Necrons may have. Their secondaries need fixing to make them less powerful, but without them the Codex is just bad, so GW can't just nerf the powerful thing unless they want the army to take a huge nosedive in win rate. Daemons might be slightly better off because the Greater Daemon spam lists may still be OK, but I think without Flamers those lists are likely too one-dimensional to do well.