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.

 RaptorusRex wrote:
That's old lore, and they've been fudging the numbers for while.

Again-it can be off by a factor of a hundred, with a hundred million Marines, and they're still outnumbered by a lot of forces on an individual planet.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
What makes you say they are skilled in close combat? Not just deadly based on their power, but skilled.

Do you think a bio-engineered monster whose entire purpose of to destroy things in close combat should have about the same chance as smacking something in close combat as the basic infantry of the Imperium?

Just chiming in on this point: yes. Despite the memes, your average guardsman isn't a talentless joke with zero melee training. They are reasonably competent at smacking/stabbing things when they need to. It's just that knives and fists aren't particularly good at turning those hits into meaningful damage when you're dealing with orks and super soldiers.

The point of a carnifex is not that the carnifex knows kung fu. The point of the carnifex is that he's big and strong enough to hurt things when he hits them. This was somewhat well represented back in the day when all MCs had a not-tiny chance of killing a vehicle with a single blow and carnifexes were one of the biggest models in the codex. You could sort of hand waive the carnifex as just being *the* beefy, dense monster that wasn't a rare and expensive hive tyrant. Its offense was good enough to seem like it was capable of doing its described job on the tabletop.

But now we have tervigons and trygons and norn queens, and it would feel weird for an itty bitty carnifex to have as much raw smacking power as they do. As this change of affairs happened, the carnifex was first leaning into its living battering ram thing (it's not as big as other bugs, but it's dense and can do a bunch of damage against large targets on the charge), but now that seems to have been left behind as well. So instead of being the go-to tool of the swarm for flipping tanks and smashing through walls, it has become more of dreadnaught equivalent; capable of duking it out with similarly-sized units, but not able to reliably take on larger threats the way it used to, and also not really equipped to bully smaller units all that well because of its unreliably chance of hitting. That same unreilably chance of hitting that both made more sense back when all you needed was one good hit and when you were still hitting most non-skimmer vehicles (its preferred target) on a 3+

In the current codex, tyrannofexes with rupture cannons should theoretically be the bugs that handle large enemies. I know that their own crummy accuracy (odd on what is basically a giant evolved gun) interfered with their abililty to do this job in the past. Not sure how they stand at the moment.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

In the current codex, tyrannofexes with rupture cannons should theoretically be the bugs that handle large enemies.

The thing is, most armies should have multiple solutions for any given type of enemy, particularly pretty standard sorts of adversaries like "large targets". Carnifexes should ideally be another effective tool in the anti-large-target tool kit.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

In the current codex, tyrannofexes with rupture cannons should theoretically be the bugs that handle large enemies.

The thing is, most armies should have multiple solutions for any given type of enemy, particularly pretty standard sorts of adversaries like "large targets". Carnifexes should ideally be another effective tool in the anti-large-target tool kit.

I'm not outright disagreeing, but if you mean at range there's the zoanthropes, hive guard, hive Tyrants for that matter, harpy, maleceptor and exocrine that maybe all deserve that title just as much if not more. In melee it's the haruspex, both norns, tyrant again, maybe tyrant guard, trygon and tervigon to some degree. You also need a home for the venomthrope and mawloc.

So if the somewhat more diminutive carnifex is the "tank killer" what do all these obviously bigger stronger looking bugs do?

Carnifex with crushing claws should be a tank-killer, that's the whole point of giving it crushing claws, they do less attacks than scything talons but hit much harder.

Dudeface wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

In the current codex, tyrannofexes with rupture cannons should theoretically be the bugs that handle large enemies.

The thing is, most armies should have multiple solutions for any given type of enemy, particularly pretty standard sorts of adversaries like "large targets". Carnifexes should ideally be another effective tool in the anti-large-target tool kit.

I'm not outright disagreeing, but if you mean at range there's the zoanthropes, hive guard, hive Tyrants for that matter, harpy, maleceptor and exocrine that maybe all deserve that title just as much if not more. In melee it's the haruspex, both norns, tyrant again, maybe tyrant guard, trygon and tervigon to some degree. You also need a home for the venomthrope and mawloc.

So if the somewhat more diminutive carnifex is the "tank killer" what do all these obviously bigger stronger looking bugs do?

They can all be large-target-engagers, just like SMs have a ***t-ton of units that can get Lascannons and Melta weapons, including my spirit animal, the Tactical Squad.

The bigger stuff can just be killier at it.

 Insectum7 wrote:
They can all be large-target-engagers, just like SMs have a ***t-ton of units that can get Lascannons and Melta weapons, including my spirit animal, the Tactical Squad.

The bigger stuff can just be killier at it.

Hmm. That's essentially how things worked back when the MC rules gave you 2d6 to pen vehicles and AP2 to potentially one-shot them. There was a period where something like a tervigon was a threat against large targets, just not a very reliable one due to its low number of attacks. It feels simultaneously weird and appropriate for a ranged specialist like the tyrannofex to also be smashing tanks in melee. Like, presumably you'd have to charge a reasonable number of points for a really high strength and decent damage stat on its melee weapons, but also it's a specialized shooting unit, and those usually don't want to pay points for melee prowess that they're usually not using.

I'm here for crushing claw carnies as anti-tank units, but also it seems like he should just kind of be outshined by a crushing claw tervigon (are they still able to take crushing claws?) that has the same type of weapon and twice the size. I guess maybe you could just ensure the carnifex has more attacks (more aggressive) or lean into the battering ram thing so that they have the edge on the charge?

The thing with the tervigon is that crushing tanks isn't its main job, its main job is supporting and spawning gants and if it gets to crush a tank then that would just be a nice bonus.

A carnifex may be individually outshinned by a Tervigon, but the Tervigon is so much more expensive (as it has to pay for its synapse and gaunt rules) that the Carnifex should be more efficient at tank crushing.

 Tyran wrote:
The thing with the tervigon is that crushing tanks isn't its main job, its main job is supporting and spawning gants and if it gets to crush a tank then that would just be a nice bonus.

A carnifex may be individually outshinned by a Tervigon, but the Tervigon is so much more expensive (as it has to pay for its synapse and gaunt rules) that the Carnifex should be more efficient at tank crushing.

OK, so now factor in the haruspex and maybe the trygon and a norn assimilator. They can't all be equally capable at the same thing or there's no point to them, unless the carnifex is either worse at it or some spammable cheap heap of crap.

Yeah the Tervigon could still be a capable tank crusher, but for the same price you could get 2 Carnifexes bringing more capability for similar points because they lack the other suppotive capabilities.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
The thing with the tervigon is that crushing tanks isn't its main job, its main job is supporting and spawning gants and if it gets to crush a tank then that would just be a nice bonus.

A carnifex may be individually outshinned by a Tervigon, but the Tervigon is so much more expensive (as it has to pay for its synapse and gaunt rules) that the Carnifex should be more efficient at tank crushing.

OK, so now factor in the haruspex and maybe the trygon and a norn assimilator. They can't all be equally capable at the same thing or there's no point to them, unless the carnifex is either worse at it or some spammable cheap heap of crap.

They can all be good at smashing things, it's fine. It's not necessary, but its possible to diverge them via particular individual abilities that set them apart from one another.

The Trygon tunnels, the Haruspex is tanky, and the Assimilator . . . I dunno what that does.

Dudeface wrote:
/quote]
OK, so now factor in the haruspex and maybe the trygon and a norn assimilator. They can't all be equally capable at the same thing or there's no point to them, unless the carnifex is either worse at it or some spammable cheap heap of crap.

Well the Carnifex should be more spammable, being the only one that can be bought in units.

That aside the Trygon has deep strike and tunneling rules so also not its main job.

As for Haruspex, they are trickier but I like the current implementation of feeder organism rules with the Assimilation Swarm.

And IMHO Norns should be more of an anti-everything in melee, but also absurdly much more expensive.

When it comes to tank hunting, crushing claws Carnifex are IMHO should be the cheapest, kinda crap at anything else but arguably the most efficient at melee AT because of how simplistic they are.

Dudeface wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
The thing with the tervigon is that crushing tanks isn't its main job, its main job is supporting and spawning gants and if it gets to crush a tank then that would just be a nice bonus.

A carnifex may be individually outshinned by a Tervigon, but the Tervigon is so much more expensive (as it has to pay for its synapse and gaunt rules) that the Carnifex should be more efficient at tank crushing.

OK, so now factor in the haruspex and maybe the trygon and a norn assimilator. They can't all be equally capable at the same thing or there's no point to them, unless the carnifex is either worse at it or some spammable cheap heap of crap.

I think you are mixing up two things, lore and rules. And because GW decided to glue the system to a d6, things that shouldn't be same "skilled" are. To give an example. A NDK GM is as good at hiting targets as an IG grunt. There is a proverbial milion and one things regarding GW esotheric "to hit" "to wound" stats. In 10th GW degraded the stats of some range weapons, I assume expecting them to be buffed, by the fact that they are heavy or assault. Problems start when they do it to weapons and then forget to give weapons one of those traits. Or they nerf the stats of something like a contemptor, to entice people to pick up and play with the much better primaris dreadnoughts (stat wise), but then because of copy past rules writing armies that don't have access to primaris, but who have multiple versions of contemptors get them nerfed in to unusability.

Lore wise, and even rules wise, monsters can be anti everyhting. Pure anti tank, range or melee, anti X but also support, the anti "knight" model, anti horde or anti elite unit etc. And GW could technicaly write good rules for all of those with synergies etc. And if they unglued themselfs from d6, then they could also make a melee carnifex and shoting carnifex different. But they don't, won't and I don't think they even are interested in doing such changes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

The thing is, most armies should have multiple solutions for any given type of enemy, particularly pretty standard sorts of adversaries like "large targets". Carnifexes should ideally be another effective tool in the anti-large-target tool kit.

They should, but it is not how GW writes rules. GW anwser to lets say, a knight players question of how is he suppose to play a game when GW didn't give his army an ability to score, in an edition all about scoring. Is silence. There are and were armies that couldn't score objectives, kill specific targets or kill anything. People seem to try to defend this with "wait for the codex" and "army X has few unit options, so it of course is bad". But then there were times in both 8th and 9th, and even in 10th, where marines, the army with a bucket of units didn't have enough different units to pick from, unless someone was in to picking bad ones. I would want to see what GW design tips are to playing a White Scar army in 10th ed. I expect it to be something in the line of play HH, while buying a different army for w40k.

 Tyran wrote:
The thing with the tervigon is that crushing tanks isn't its main job, its main job is supporting and spawning gants and if it gets to crush a tank then that would just be a nice bonus.

A carnifex may be individually outshinned by a Tervigon, but the Tervigon is so much more expensive (as it has to pay for its synapse and gaunt rules) that the Carnifex should be more efficient at tank crushing.

That's fair. Feels a little weird something like a carnifex is better at a job by virtue of being cheap rather than just being the smashiest guy in town, but it's a good solution to the "bigger bugs exist now" thing.

Karol wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
The thing with the tervigon is that crushing tanks isn't its main job, its main job is supporting and spawning gants and if it gets to crush a tank then that would just be a nice bonus.

A carnifex may be individually outshinned by a Tervigon, but the Tervigon is so much more expensive (as it has to pay for its synapse and gaunt rules) that the Carnifex should be more efficient at tank crushing.

OK, so now factor in the haruspex and maybe the trygon and a norn assimilator. They can't all be equally capable at the same thing or there's no point to them, unless the carnifex is either worse at it or some spammable cheap heap of crap.

I think you are mixing up two things, lore and rules. And because GW decided to glue the system to a d6, things that shouldn't be same "skilled" are. To give an example. A NDK GM is as good at hiting targets as an IG grunt. There is a proverbial milion and one things regarding GW esotheric "to hit" "to wound" stats. In 10th GW degraded the stats of some range weapons, I assume expecting them to be buffed, by the fact that they are heavy or assault. Problems start when they do it to weapons and then forget to give weapons one of those traits. Or they nerf the stats of something like a contemptor, to entice people to pick up and play with the much better primaris dreadnoughts (stat wise), but then because of copy past rules writing armies that don't have access to primaris, but who have multiple versions of contemptors get them nerfed in to unusability.

Lore wise, and even rules wise, monsters can be anti everyhting. Pure anti tank, range or melee, anti X but also support, the anti "knight" model, anti horde or anti elite unit etc. And GW could technicaly write good rules for all of those with synergies etc. And if they unglued themselfs from d6, then they could also make a melee carnifex and shoting carnifex different. But they don't, won't and I don't think they even are interested in doing such changes.

Not at all, ignoring fluff and based purely on in game roles, there are still too many big nid creatures to fit to roles without marginalising them via delivery method. In a world where a carnifex is suddenly capable anti-vehicle, the haruspex should become even better anti-vehicle, as should most other big bugs, but as other noted the only real thing you can do at that point is make the others more expensive/have other better rules that support other purposes. The carnifex always comes back to being a bit of a generalist and not as good at any one thing as the other bugs largely, which is where it is now. It makes it so it's only capable via weight of attacks and bodies due to being cheaper.

It's all a likely result of the changes to monstrous creatures, most of which I welcome, but the removal of smash attacks etc. Has hurt nids as much as the weird reluctance to give them much high strength weaponry.

Not at all, ignoring fluff and based purely on in game roles, there are still too many big nid creatures to fit to roles without marginalising them via delivery method

That's really more a problem of sales driven bloat. they have expanded the lines so much with so many models doing the same job that they can only marginally differentiate them with a D6 system with the added resource mechanic system. you are in a situation now, especially with 10th, where you can only make one choice-the most efficient and powerful one, because of how the psudeo power level system works.

With GWs design ethos changed so radically from it's inception (seriously go back and look at unit/not wargear options for every faction circa 3rd/4th ed) squatting first born is only the start of what they need to do to maintain the model sales roadmap they are on. the newer better model must be pushed because everybody already has the old model, that isn't selling. for the poor carnifex that actually started with 6th ed when they moved the FW trygon/malwoc into the main line plastics to replace the carnifex. reducing its rules/effectiveness for the new FOMO unit.

Or you have multiple good options, and maybe you would want to run 4-6 of X, but you can't because of the rule of 3. So instead of running 6 plasma dreads, some marine players run 3 plasma ones and 3 las/RL ones. As long as the gap between the units isn't to big and they help the over all army game play, and if possible make it harder for the opponent to deal with army fast enough, they will be taken.
It is only when there are armies with multiple units per slot, but not really any worth taking that having multiple similar unit types becomes a problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface 811846 11624284 wrote:


Not at all, ignoring fluff and based purely on in game roles, there are still too many big nid creatures to fit to roles without marginalising them via delivery method. In a world where a carnifex is suddenly capable anti-vehicle, the haruspex should become even better anti-vehicle, as should most other big bugs, but as other noted the only real thing you can do at that point is make the others more expensive/have other better rules that support other purposes. The carnifex always comes back to being a bit of a generalist and not as good at any one thing as the other bugs largely, which is where it is now. It makes it so it's only capable via weight of attacks and bodies due to being cheaper.

It's all a likely result of the changes to monstrous creatures, most of which I welcome, but the removal of smash attacks etc. Has hurt nids as much as the weird reluctance to give them much high strength weaponry.

yes. And the good (aka probably efficient but undercosted) carnifex is going to be run along side the haruspex (if GW graced it with above avarge rules and low cost), and other monsters to overwhelm other armies. That is how we get monster mash or DE meat mountain or marine dreadnought+tanks lists. The only way for GW to make them different without giving units too low point costs and/or too good rules, is if they ditched the d6, which as I said, they will not do.

This means the carnifex gets bounced between times where it is good and a good army, and times where using it is just stupid. And then the tyranid player better have a rule set and unit line up to support a swarm list.

 alextroy wrote:
I find it interesting that so many people see 10th as sterile when it has more thematic rules than Index 8th Edition. Maybe it’s because 8th was a breathe of fresh air after 7th, while 10th is just a pullback from the excess of 9th?

It's sterile because it's game-ified to the point there's basically no wargame itself left. Army building is so cookie cutter and devoid of nuance that the wargame feel is just dead, and that's really been an issue for much of nuhammer. Rather than sitting down and hammering out a list for a thematic force that feels like an actual army group, you're engaging in combos which bounce off of each other. In a large fashion list building with modern 40k for the past three editions has felt like deck building in MTG Commander instead. You get a deathstar, you select units to amp up that base strategy, and then you arbitrarily steamroll something through the deluge of buffs for certain units. Marine armies in particular feel like an antithesis of their old selves, a strange mixture of hero hammer blended with CWE.

 Wyzilla wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
I find it interesting that so many people see 10th as sterile when it has more thematic rules than Index 8th Edition. Maybe it’s because 8th was a breathe of fresh air after 7th, while 10th is just a pullback from the excess of 9th?

It's sterile because it's game-ified to the point there's basically no wargame itself left. Army building is so cookie cutter and devoid of nuance that the wargame feel is just dead, and that's really been an issue for much of nuhammer. Rather than sitting down and hammering out a list for a thematic force that feels like an actual army group, you're engaging in combos which bounce off of each other. In a large fashion list building with modern 40k for the past three editions has felt like deck building in MTG Commander instead. You get a deathstar, you select units to amp up that base strategy, and then you arbitrarily steamroll something through the deluge of buffs for certain units. Marine armies in particular feel like an antithesis of their old selves, a strange mixture of hero hammer blended with CWE.

GW are going after the people who play video games

leopard wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
I find it interesting that so many people see 10th as sterile when it has more thematic rules than Index 8th Edition. Maybe it’s because 8th was a breathe of fresh air after 7th, while 10th is just a pullback from the excess of 9th?

It's sterile because it's game-ified to the point there's basically no wargame itself left. Army building is so cookie cutter and devoid of nuance that the wargame feel is just dead, and that's really been an issue for much of nuhammer. Rather than sitting down and hammering out a list for a thematic force that feels like an actual army group, you're engaging in combos which bounce off of each other. In a large fashion list building with modern 40k for the past three editions has felt like deck building in MTG Commander instead. You get a deathstar, you select units to amp up that base strategy, and then you arbitrarily steamroll something through the deluge of buffs for certain units. Marine armies in particular feel like an antithesis of their old selves, a strange mixture of hero hammer blended with CWE.

GW are going after the people who play video games

We see how well that worked for 4th ed DnD.

 Wyzilla wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
I find it interesting that so many people see 10th as sterile when it has more thematic rules than Index 8th Edition. Maybe it’s because 8th was a breathe of fresh air after 7th, while 10th is just a pullback from the excess of 9th?

It's sterile because it's game-ified to the point there's basically no wargame itself left. Army building is so cookie cutter and devoid of nuance that the wargame feel is just dead, and that's really been an issue for much of nuhammer. Rather than sitting down and hammering out a list for a thematic force that feels like an actual army group, you're engaging in combos which bounce off of each other. In a large fashion list building with modern 40k for the past three editions has felt like deck building in MTG Commander instead. You get a deathstar, you select units to amp up that base strategy, and then you arbitrarily steamroll something through the deluge of buffs for certain units. Marine armies in particular feel like an antithesis of their old selves, a strange mixture of hero hammer blended with CWE.

Weirdly one of the most vocal problems for 10th is the opposite of this. There aren't layers of depth to army building to stack up buffs and overlapping combos, they've stripped those back and removed a lot of the deck-building gotcha moments that people spent a lot of time in the 'list building phase'. Whilst I aren't sure I agree 100% with the complaint in that direction, I do agree it to be a change for 10th that's clearly visible. So to that end I think your criticism in that regard is a little anachronistic, as it would definitely apply to 9th, but less so 10th. To the point I think some groups want that.

Dudeface wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
I find it interesting that so many people see 10th as sterile when it has more thematic rules than Index 8th Edition. Maybe it’s because 8th was a breathe of fresh air after 7th, while 10th is just a pullback from the excess of 9th?

It's sterile because it's game-ified to the point there's basically no wargame itself left. Army building is so cookie cutter and devoid of nuance that the wargame feel is just dead, and that's really been an issue for much of nuhammer. Rather than sitting down and hammering out a list for a thematic force that feels like an actual army group, you're engaging in combos which bounce off of each other. In a large fashion list building with modern 40k for the past three editions has felt like deck building in MTG Commander instead. You get a deathstar, you select units to amp up that base strategy, and then you arbitrarily steamroll something through the deluge of buffs for certain units. Marine armies in particular feel like an antithesis of their old selves, a strange mixture of hero hammer blended with CWE.

Weirdly one of the most vocal problems for 10th is the opposite of this. There aren't layers of depth to army building to stack up buffs and overlapping combos, they've stripped those back and removed a lot of the deck-building gotcha moments that people spent a lot of time in the 'list building phase'. Whilst I aren't sure I agree 100% with the complaint in that direction, I do agree it to be a change for 10th that's clearly visible. So to that end I think your criticism in that regard is a little anachronistic, as it would definitely apply to 9th, but less so 10th. To the point I think some groups want that.

Well I certainly haven't played 10th, I read over a lot of the rules and just stayed in my fethed off position for 40k as I gave up on the game at the state of 9e. When Deathwing became borderline unkillable, not because the raw stats of the unit, but they just cannot be killed because of silly interactions with interactions, I was just done. It's horrible gameplay, devoid of strategy, and chafes conceptually with being a wargame. 10e's got less of it but it still overall just reads frankly childish compared to proper wargames. Oddly the new Fantasy edition is looking like it's striving for that mature simulationism and avoidance of arbitrary crazy combo buffs, treading firmly in 6e's tradition which is a good sign.

Well I certainly haven't played 10th, I read over a lot of the rules and just stayed in my fethed off position for 40k as I gave up on the game at the state of 9e. When Deathwing became borderline unkillable, not because the raw stats of the unit, but they just cannot be killed because of silly interactions with interactions, I was just done. It's horrible gameplay, devoid of strategy, and chafes conceptually with being a wargame. 10e's got less of it but it still overall just reads frankly childish compared to proper wargames. Oddly the new Fantasy edition is looking like it's striving for that mature simulationism and avoidance of arbitrary crazy combo buffs, treading firmly in 6e's tradition which is a good sign.

It is even more fun when you are at an active game store and watch people play through 9th (even during covid lockdowns we were still getting loads of private group games in) from the beginning all the way through 10th and get to watch the game in action.....and then come here and have people tell you you have no experience for your opinions about how the game is.

It was pointed out earlier as a "game" it isn't bad, but it isn't a wargame in the way you and i are accustomed to, we are not the target audience anymore. there are very few people who come in and play 10th at our FLGS anymore, even some of the players who were current have suffered burn out or now focus on playing other games. battle tech is currently king of the hill at the moment, with various players promoting things they have gotten into recently like MCP.

I think it is good for the general store community for people to bring in different games and armies/minis for games they like to play. i am always willing to jump in and try something new out to see how it is. especially when i do not have to buy or bring anything to play.

Dudeface wrote:
Weirdly one of the most vocal problems for 10th is the opposite of this. There aren't layers of depth to army building to stack up buffs and overlapping combos, they've stripped those back and removed a lot of the deck-building gotcha moments that people spent a lot of time in the 'list building phase'. Whilst I aren't sure I agree 100% with the complaint in that direction, I do agree it to be a change for 10th that's clearly visible. So to that end I think your criticism in that regard is a little anachronistic, as it would definitely apply to 9th, but less so 10th. To the point I think some groups want that.

I think 10th has sort of fallen between two stools.
The people who hated 8th and 9th have largely continued to chuck the same arrows at it. By contrast some of those who liked 8th and 9th see it as an unnecessary reset.

Put ruthlessly - 8th was a breath of fresh air because 7th was awful (unless you enjoyed clubbing people with the few top factions). The last year or so of 9th by contrast was arguably the best 40k has ever been.

I also think GW moved faster with 8th. Arguably it was an imbalanced mess - but I think we had 10 new codexes in 6 months. By contrast in 10th we've had 4. Depending on the definition of Spring we might get to 9 vs 16 - which would be better, but is still quite a gap. I also think the abuses of Indexhammer were less immediately obvious. In 8th some new tournament terror would appear every month - as players used and abused near unlimited soup, turn 1 deepstrike and unit spam etc. But these were always more terrifying online than in practice. At least initially they were not in every FLGS. This I think compared rather differently to "I've got an Eldar army that should be 20-30% more points, lets see how this goes". Things are better now - but first impressions are first impressions.

Might be the rose-colored glasses talking, but I feel like 8th was the edition with the most time spent being "pretty good" on the whole.

As Tyel pointed out, the boogeymen lists tended not to show up in your local store right away, and the meta was shifting so often that I didn't really have time to get properly frustrated with any OP build until they failed to tone down knights for like, a year. Things definitely jumped the shark with marines 2.0, but prior to that, especially if you weren't playing against knights, it was pretty easy to have a close game of 8th using a wide variety of lists.

But a bit more directly relevant to Dudeface's post: For me, it's not that I miss the wombo-combos of warlord traits/relics/detachment traits/strats from 9th; it's that those traits/relics/sometimes strats were a big part of how 9th retained some amount of customization. Like, as much as I hated having to jump through hoops to give my drukhari their relics/traits when those things probably should have just been wargear, at least I *could* build characters that felt flavorful an distinct from each other.

10th has generally removed more options than it added (at least for my armies). There's kind of a "right" build for your characters, especially once you've chosen a detachment. And that same feeling is there for your non-characters. Instead of having the option to build a 5-man warrior sqad that's cheap or even one with a cute sybarite decked out in too-expensive gear or a big squad that maximizes special weapons and defines its role through which guns it takes.... Now I'm just fielding 10-man squads, and the only gun choices are "do you want to play at a disadvantage or not?"

I think what was great about 8th edition was that some of us had to use books written for 5th all the way up to the end of 7th. To have a reset meta that I could actually compete in instead of being the NPC faction was great. There's none of this with 10th. Hell I got my book as the edition ended so there's no shortage of bad feelings on my part. But there was no great leveling of the playing field across factions or finally being able to get something current after a 5+yrs droubt. This was change for change sake. I'm glad faction secondaries are gone and strats have been reduced. But it's 2 steps back for one forward.

I started playing in 8th. And the rules for my army felt, as if they were either writen with some really ancient edition in mind or no edition at all. Till the PA book came out, I wouldn't even consider the army having a real codex in 8th. It was an exercise in spiting up wind. And certain armies had the expiriance in both 8th and 9th.

The only difference is that back in 8th or 9th, there still were options, there was FW that GW forgot existed, so some builds could run.
Sure if you played imperium the loyal 32, ravellans etc were a "fix" to every faction and playing vs some factions didn't make sense for an years. And that is IMO the biggest problem with GW. Fixing stuff or adding stuff that should just be, takes them years if not editions. And often when they do add them, like lets say jump pack troops and HQs, the time to use those already passed. So some people can have models bought 20-30 years ago and have great fun every edition without spending much, while others have to rebuy their army twice and edition, and often never get a good enough army to have fun.

As Tyel pointed out, the boogeymen lists tended not to show up in your local store right away, and the meta was shifting so often that I didn't really have time to get properly frustrated with any OP build until they failed to tone down knights for like, a year.

Is that why dark reapers were sold out world wide for the entire first half of the edition? Or later eldar flyers. The meta was not shifting at all. There were entire months of domination of one faction (Ynnari), then broken up ravellans+loyal 32 and kamikaze BA cpts invalidating every vehicle in the game.
the only variaty in lists and people playing different factions having fun, came at the end of edition when the 2.0 sm codex came out. Then we had RG centurion infiltration bombs, IH dreadnought builds, infantry spams. But all those were culled as soon as 9th started, and we were back to +60% win rate harlequin, replaced by DE and only after that mid 9th ed, did GW start to push the crazy button , not for all books though, really fast, up until they reached eldar book in 9th, which more or less anwsered the question who is the most OP in the edition. Which one would think should mean that eldar would be reigned in 10th, but that is not the case. They have more build options, more wins, then anyone else. CSM for example who are also very strong, have one way to play. Trying to play the army in a different way, with different units means the army drops below 50% win rates. And it gets even worse in non tournament setting, because somehow thanks to the rules that were supposed to be removed from 10th ed (as they were named the bad thing in 9th by GW), are somehow okey to have for eldar. Even the stupid one per unit marine re-roll got gutted from their codex.

Karol wrote:

As Tyel pointed out, the boogeymen lists tended not to show up in your local store right away, and the meta was shifting so often that I didn't really have time to get properly frustrated with any OP build until they failed to tone down knights for like, a year.

Is that why dark reapers were sold out world wide for the entire first half of the edition? Or later eldar flyers. The meta was not shifting at all. There were entire months of domination of one faction (Ynnari), then broken up ravellans+loyal 32 and kamikaze BA cpts invalidating every vehicle in the game.
the only variaty in lists and people playing different factions having fun, came at the end of edition when the 2.0 sm codex came out. Then we had RG centurion infiltration bombs, IH dreadnought builds, infantry spams. But all those were culled as soon as 9th started, and we were back to +60% win rate harlequin, replaced by DE and only after that mid 9th ed, did GW start to push the crazy button , not for all books though, really fast, up until they reached eldar book in 9th, which more or less anwsered the question who is the most OP in the edition. Which one would think should mean that eldar would be reigned in 10th, but that is not the case. They have more build options, more wins, then anyone else. CSM for example who are also very strong, have one way to play. Trying to play the army in a different way, with different units means the army drops below 50% win rates. And it gets even worse in non tournament setting, because somehow thanks to the rules that were supposed to be removed from 10th ed (as they were named the bad thing in 9th by GW), are somehow okey to have for eldar. Even the stupid one per unit marine re-roll got gutted from their codex.

Meanwhile, as all those 40k horror stories were playing out.... well, somewhere (probably in your tourney scenes).....
All around the world (even when everything was closed up due to Covid!) there were countless thousands of games, campaigns, & Crusades being played where the people involved were having fun.

ccs wrote:

Karol wrote:

As Tyel pointed out, the boogeymen lists tended not to show up in your local store right away, and the meta was shifting so often that I didn't really have time to get properly frustrated with any OP build until they failed to tone down knights for like, a year.

Is that why dark reapers were sold out world wide for the entire first half of the edition? Or later eldar flyers. The meta was not shifting at all. There were entire months of domination of one faction (Ynnari), then broken up ravellans+loyal 32 and kamikaze BA cpts invalidating every vehicle in the game.
the only variaty in lists and people playing different factions having fun, came at the end of edition when the 2.0 sm codex came out. Then we had RG centurion infiltration bombs, IH dreadnought builds, infantry spams. But all those were culled as soon as 9th started, and we were back to +60% win rate harlequin, replaced by DE and only after that mid 9th ed, did GW start to push the crazy button , not for all books though, really fast, up until they reached eldar book in 9th, which more or less anwsered the question who is the most OP in the edition. Which one would think should mean that eldar would be reigned in 10th, but that is not the case. They have more build options, more wins, then anyone else. CSM for example who are also very strong, have one way to play. Trying to play the army in a different way, with different units means the army drops below 50% win rates. And it gets even worse in non tournament setting, because somehow thanks to the rules that were supposed to be removed from 10th ed (as they were named the bad thing in 9th by GW), are somehow okey to have for eldar. Even the stupid one per unit marine re-roll got gutted from their codex.

Meanwhile, as all those 40k horror stories were playing out.... well, somewhere (probably in your tourney scenes).....
All around the world (even when everything was closed up due to Covid!) there were countless thousands of games, campaigns, & Crusades being played where the people involved were having fun.

Spoiler:

Even the 3 GK players I personally know.

You know that dismissing someones experiences while being as condescending as possible doesn't really bolster your argument right? People have fun with Monopoly, I will never understand it but they do. Usually it has nothing to do with the game and all to do with the people you play with.

The only place I can play at locally is a very competitive scene, they are all really cool guys and I enjoy them but it shows just how bad 40k has become in my opinion. I have played Tyranids since 3rd when I first started and I feel so empty building a list now. An army that used to have thousands of options to build YOUR perfect organism now has...nothing really. I enjoy playing with these guys but I do not enjoy what 40k is now, the GAME is causing me to not enjoy it, not the people, not the tourney scene.

IDK if my opinion is interesting or not. I am 45 years old, watched WH as an outsider develop over the years but never really found war-gaming to be my thing. Played Battletech, Whitedwarf, and WH, never 40k, but I was aware of it as a TTRPG guy growing up in the 90's. I just prefer TTRPG over wargaming and that is still true. So again, my opinion might not be that interesting.

What I will say is committing to wargaming is a deep commitment. Time, Money, but most of all brain power. It is like going over to a friends house and they whip out a new board game. They have min-maxed the rules already so you know its a night of but stomping ahead or you have to study like you are back in school to try to compete.

I remember when DND released 2nd Edition. Everyone liked it. Why? Because it grew the IP horizontally, 1st ED fit inside 2nd for the most part and what was missing you could just add back with no conversations.

3rd ED introduced some cools ideas but ret-conned so much and changed the way things worked. GW has followed this playbook and IMHO, its a big mistake. It is far better to grow your system horizontally than create new versions with a million revisions.

That is why I use my own custom system for Role Playing in the WH universe. Warth and Glory and Dark Heresy were just never properly fleshed out and wargaming is too cumbersome.

Looking back on things and seeing the Warhammer war gaming communities reactions to the constant revision, IMHO not surprising. All of us gamers need fewer systems more conciliation and the game needs to be easy and cheap to get into not a puzzle of growing complexity.

Responding to the OP;

I feel 10th is not in a great place, but something needed to be done about 9th because the last few years of it just weren't fun. 10th does a good job addressing 9ths issues in my eyes, and it seems to me that 40k's biggest problem has shifted from core design to army balance, which is an improvement in principle IMO even if it doesn't feel like such in practice.

The new app is a big help too.