Faction Glut and 9th game play Conversation

[Debauchery101]

I usually am for all the new shiny powerful stuff for whatever army I am playing to scheming with. I just feel quite overwhelmed right now. With all these new rules, toys and trinkets for the Poster boys of 40k is giving me flashbacks to this time last year. Marines have been given a raging river of new content literally for a solid year.

 

I've played around 30 games at 1000 to 2500 points using the new rules. Mostly victory have come down to using a certain set of marine rules that counter another set of marine rules.

 

No other faction has gotten any sort of real counter to marines for the match play style games. The best way was to use a clever combo of target saturation and number count. Which now is almost completely gutted with the blast rules. Some units from more fragile factions only become good in large numbers and youre rewarded from bonuses in their datasheet. Plus morale is more of a factor but not as much for smaller units...marines are the best small units

 

There's definitely things I'm missing and maybe some playstyles and lists I haven't encountered but I have a pretty diverse group of players in regards to armies we play with.

 

Some of the stuff we haven't seen or have full rules for even ups our efficiency on the board.

There are some combos and lists i can field with my large collection i know would just not make for a good game even for the competition minded players i game with.

 

Mostly I am just getting tired of worrying about the chaotic storm of hype new lethal stuff that either gets nerfed for its blatant strength or a faction gets a complete overhaul that sets the precedent/start of a whole new level of power creep. The first codices usually end up the biggest victims of being nerfed or nullified.

 

Anyways I'm just sitting here with a large SW army thats 75% done with a few voices in my head telling me not to commit to anything as well as telling me to go back to a different faction everytime I see a new rule or unit leaked.

 

Plus the other thing I worry about is the faction stratagems...does anybody else feel that giving the CP system now is broken? Knights...custodes...Deathwatch...grey knights...what were they smoking? I want some...or do we not know a huge cleansing or cost increase for stratagems is coming? I played 1 game with my dusty DW and they've never been better with close to double CP I've ever had without loyal 32...

 

And look this is coming from a competitive viewpoint. What sucked about last edition was the last 6 months. Leak rules...release rules...1 or 2 weekends of itc go by if youre lucky and your new list is nerfed to hell. My Salamanders got nerfed before I got the book I pre ordered

 

Chime in with your 2 cents on your worries. How not to worry or with things we feel should change.

[CrystalSeer]

All you have to do is wait until the first faq after release. They normally don't change much after that. If you can't do that, you're exhausting yourself chasing the meta train.

[sairence]

I figure we're pretty much in the Index days of 9th atm. Yes, we all have Codexes, but they were for the most part written with the old rules, especially in regard to strategems and CP.

 

As for the marines...I don't play power armour, I'm used to the uphill struggle. That's really all the reaction I have to the endless train of Primaries releases. *shrug*

Edited August 6, 2020 by sairence

[The Yncarne]

I think there are too many factions, especially of the power armor kind. I also believe that so many factions mean some will inevitably come up short for several reasons including play testing, development time, Resource allocation, studio champions, and most importantly, the desire to sell models. 
 

that said, I don’t want to take stuff away from anybody. Presumably people buy stuff they like, but the sheer glut of options (factions and units in some cases) can result in the paradox of choice and somebody getting the short end of the stick. 
 

I tend to see 40k as a beer and pretzels game and try to avoid being too emotionally invested in what others are doing for fun. 

[RandyB]

I've made this argument before. There ARE too many factions, currently. Sales-driven product management means that Space Marines will be the lion's share of product, and Primaris will be most or all of the new Space Marine models.

 

I argue for the hard choice - remove factions from the product line. Yes, fans of the removed factions will be incensed. Considering that three of the factions that it would make sense to remove are personal favorites of mine, I'm calling for GW to impact me, not just someone else.

 

Removing factions would clear the decks for the remaining factions to be better supported with new/updated models in the reality of the predominance of Space Marine product - which predominance will never go away.

[Gherrick]

GW won't touch existing chapters until they bite the bullet and stop making/selling the pre-primaris units. Likely, that won't happen until both existing inventory is exhausted, and the molds have gone through most, if not all, of their life cycle.

[MegaVolt87]

Cutting factions won't solve anything. Even in past editions factions were still neglected + left behind. Axing factions now would be a good way to kill 40k. Only thing on death row are old marines.

[Bryan Blaire]

I've been hoping that given we know there are multi-year long leads on production that there's a back-log of units for multiple factions waiting in line to be produced and things will ramp up when all of the expansion GW has done is up and running full steam (which is likely somewhat hindered now by COVID-19 precautions).

 

I think the back-up will be in the rules writing and/or play-testing, but personally I'm not worried about the number of factions in the game, I'm just hoping that things move more toward balance between factions, rather than ever increasing power levels for new Codexes coming out.

[RandyB]

Cutting factions won't solve anything. Even in past editions factions were still neglected + left behind. Axing factions now would be a good way to kill 40k. Only thing on death row are old marines.

The goal of cutting factions would be to consolidate model support to the remaining factions, particularly the non-Astartes factions. If that did not occur, then cutting factions would be pointless.

 

The alternative is to step up support of all of the non-Astartes factions while maintaining the current and planned support for the Astartes - because GW will never reduce support for the Astartes due to sales numbers.

 

I would prefer the latter myself. I find that alternative highly unlikely, though. Absent that, cutting some factions and consolidating non-Astartes support to the remaining non-Astartes factions is barely the lesser evil as compared with the current state of the product line.

[Evil Eye]

40K has too many factions to be considered viable as a balanced, competitive game for certain. The answer is to abandon attempts to try and make it one- it was never meant to be one (it was originally an RPG-esque skirmish game with a GM) and it's not going to work as one. At this point I'd argue for GW just saying "feth it" and making whatever they want- rather a lot like they did back in the day. If the alternative is a more "balanced" game at the expense of playable factions, I'll stick with less balance.

 

The tourney-obsessed WAAC crowd will gnash their teeth and scream that their painstaking analysis of the meta has been invalidated and their netlist army is ruined, but if the choice is upsetting people who only build minis based on mathematical statistics of their table performance and are likely to throw away their army the instant the meta changes (even though their army is still perfectly playable outside of the ultra-competitive scene) or upsetting people that have either poured their heart and soul into their collection by removing their faction from playability completely, I'll take the former. At present it seems impossible to go forward without upsetting one of the crowds anyway.

 

The game just can't work in the meta-obsessed tournament environment some people want it to, at least not without rendering it sterile and boring. IMO at least it would be infinitely better to bring the game closer to its roots as a narrative experience.

 

Or to put it another way- Reject modernity. Embrace tradition.

[Jukkiz]

funny how you can clump most of factions to:

1. Imperium
2. Chaos
3. Xenos

[The Yncarne]

funny how you can clump most of factions to:

 

1. Imperium

2. Chaos

3. Xenos

 

Don't forget Space Marines! 

 

I believe there are 24 codexes and 6 marine codex supplements.

[Vermintide]

Chasing the meta is a fool's errand.

 

Unless you are burdened with piles and piles of money you desperately need to set on fire, and are prepared to deal with the fact that your meticulously refined army can and will be enntirely invalidated on an annual basis, it's only ever going to burn you out. From what I've been able to tell, this kind of mindset is the primary factor keeping the eBay resale market afloat- Lots of people needing to shift those expensive lumps of plastic every time and FAQ comes out and renders them all but useless.

 

If that bothers you then the only winning move, so to speak, is not to play. Instead, see the challenge of building as strong a list as you can, out of the army you do have, and reap the reward of loyalty to your faction. I'd wager it's a lot more satisfying to clinch victories with your army than to pick up easy wins with the latest flavour of the month. The biggest thing you have to realise is that it's all self inflicted- If you stop chasing the meta, the other people you play with are no longer forced to participate in an arms race escalation.

 

With that said I do think the game could be accused of bloat, but I think we all know it's mainly coming from one particular offending faction right now. Even when the Old Marines are sent off to the farm, it will still feel like Primaris has a lot of stuff, and not all of it logical. We can only hope it all makes sense in the end when we can see the full picture; and that GW addresses it by giving other factions a decent update likewise.

 

I argue for the hard choice - remove factions from the product line. Yes, fans of the removed factions will be incensed. Considering that three of the factions that it would make sense to remove are personal favorites of mine, I'm calling for GW to impact me, not just someone else.

Out of curiosity, which ones do you think it would make sense to remove? I'm sure that could be a debate that goes on for hours in and of itself.

 

In principle I do feel like it's gotten out of hand that something like half of the total factions are Imperial, and half of those in turn are Space Marines. I'd be happy if it never went any further than SM, IG, SoB and maaaaybe AM, but it's kind of too late now.

Edited August 6, 2020 by Vermintide

[Khornestar]

40K has too many factions to be considered viable as a balanced, competitive game for certain. The answer is to abandon attempts to try and make it one- it was never meant to be one (it was originally an RPG-esque skirmish game with a GM) and it's not going to work as one. At this point I'd argue for GW just saying "feth it" and making whatever they want- rather a lot like they did back in the day. If the alternative is a more "balanced" game at the expense of playable factions, I'll stick with less balance.

 

The tourney-obsessed WAAC crowd will gnash their teeth and scream that their painstaking analysis of the meta has been invalidated and their netlist army is ruined, but if the choice is upsetting people who only build minis based on mathematical statistics of their table performance and are likely to throw away their army the instant the meta changes (even though their army is still perfectly playable outside of the ultra-competitive scene) or upsetting people that have either poured their heart and soul into their collection by removing their faction from playability completely, I'll take the former. At present it seems impossible to go forward without upsetting one of the crowds anyway.

 

The game just can't work in the meta-obsessed tournament environment some people want it to, at least not without rendering it sterile and boring. IMO at least it would be infinitely better to bring the game closer to its roots as a narrative experience.

 

Or to put it another way- Reject modernity. Embrace tradition.

Perfectly put. Competitive 40k is a square peg round hole situation IMO. I expect amazing models/paints and “good enough” rules that allow us to have some fun. They’re just not good at writing rules. A million factions compound it.

 

Still salty over losing Khorne Daemonkin.

Edited August 6, 2020 by Juggernut

[Scribe]

You can absolutely have 40K be a competitive game.

 

You won't have it across every single unit in the game, but you could across factions.

 

Will it be Chess? Absolutely not. This is a game of dice.

 

However to say it can never be balanced is just a cop out.

[Gederas]

I've made this argument before. There ARE too many factions, currently. Sales-driven product management means that Space Marines will be the lion's share of product, and Primaris will be most or all of the new Space Marine models.

 

I argue for the hard choice - remove factions from the product line. Yes, fans of the removed factions will be incensed. Considering that three of the factions that it would make sense to remove are personal favorites of mine, I'm calling for GW to impact me, not just someone else.

 

Removing factions would clear the decks for the remaining factions to be better supported with new/updated models in the reality of the predominance of Space Marine product - which predominance will never go away.

40k is not Warhammer Fantasy. You can't just axe whole armies and not care. Fantasy had flagging sales and a smaller playerbase, at that point, it didn't matter.

 

Axing an entire line in 40k would basically be a death sentence for 40k, because then people would think they could be next.

 

[Jukkiz]

 

funny how you can clump most of factions to:

 

1. Imperium

2. Chaos

3. Xenos

 

Don't forget Space Marines! 

 

I believe there are 24 codexes and 6 marine codex supplements.

 

still under imperium if you really want to make things simple.

 

SM are pushed way too much and i say this as old SM model hunter and collector. I rarely play. One game was with modified 4th edition rules and couple trying new Kill team.

[WrathOfTheLion]

Yeah, I don't think removing lines is anywhere close to the right way to go.

[Khornestar]

You can absolutely have 40K be a competitive game.

 

You won't have it across every single unit in the game, but you could across factions.

 

Will it be Chess? Absolutely not. This is a game of dice.

 

However to say it can never be balanced is just a cop out.

Can be versus will be. Hasn’t happened so far, unlikely it ever will. Doesn’t mean it can’t be better.

[Scribe]

Sure, it can be improved, but that's not what most people probably are into.

5th was the best version to me, but all the narrative folks hated it.

Balance starts with a clean rules set.

 

EDIT: Thats not to say they could not perform some serious consolidation, but I think thats more due to the fact some factions really should not be stand alone, if there ever where to be an expectation that 'all factions are competitive'. Not to say that there is but you know what I mean.

 

Harli's for example just are too limited in their roster to ever be well rounded by any means.

 

I also think that the utter shamelessness that is the Space Marines range (Primaris and OG) is gross when there are other things that could be done with those release windows (Eldar update when? Exodites when?) but that again does not mean we couldnt achieve a more level state of balance.

Edited August 6, 2020 by Scribe

[ThePenitentOne]

Some of the small dex/ small army things are seeds for later growth; Harlies didn't have a heck of a lot of units in 8th, but remember when GSC got its second wave?

 

I think Custodes are going to get the wave 2 treatment this time. Personally, I'd like to see them expand the SoS part of Talons enough that SoS could be used without Custodes. I was hoping they would do this with the Web of the Spider PA, but no such luck.

 

Ynarri might, but they may keep them as is for one more edition while the establish hints about what the growth would be. I'm hoping they add a few Exodite units and a few Corsair units as core. It would be neat for Ynnari to have an aspect shrine of their own too. WD could release articles for using the Ynnari Exodite and Corsair units as Exodites and Corsairs. Then in 10th, they could get their own Harley sized dexes.

[Fajita Fan]

There are too many armies to properly balance in a timely way. I would love for 40k to go back to 3rd edition style codices.

 

Space marines

- (All the variant chapters get a small supplement that references this book for the main entries and just have their separate units/wargear)

Imperial Guard

- (With stormtroopers included)

Demonhunters with GK/Inquisitors

- (can take units from IG or SM)

Sisters

Necrons

Nids

GSC (feel like a separate army but should be battle brothers with nids to help both books prosper)

Chaos

- (should be able to take IG units if a “cult commander” or some S3 T3 HQ is taken)

Demons

Tau

Orks

Eldar

- (should be able to take Harlequins, no idea why they’re a separate codex)

Dark Eldar

- (ditto)

Agents of the Empire

- (should include Custodes, Sisters of Silence, and assassins)

Admech

 

 

Less main codices, more supplements only detailing the different units and equipment so there’s less typos. CA should be the opportunity to add a new special rule or strategems to each army to improve balance. Having dozens of army books to balance makes it harder on GW and players while only marginally boosting revenue getting us to buy so many codices on a three year cycle.

Edited August 7, 2020 by Fajita Fan

[Volt]

Sure, it can be improved, but that's not what most people probably are into.

 

5th was the best version to me, but all the narrative folks hated it.

 

Balance starts with a clean rules set.

 

EDIT: Thats not to say they could not perform some serious consolidation, but I think thats more due to the fact some factions really should not be stand alone, if there ever where to be an expectation that 'all factions are competitive'. Not to say that there is but you know what I mean.

 

Harli's for example just are too limited in their roster to ever be well rounded by any means.

 

I also think that the utter shamelessness that is the Space Marines range (Primaris and OG) is gross when there are other things that could be done with those release windows (Eldar update when? Exodites when?) but that again does not mean we couldnt achieve a more level state of balance.

The key to balance is removing variants really than codices themselves. You could have like 20 codices, but so long as all of those units are not all over the place the game could be easily brought to balance. The most glaring thing to me is actually marine bloat, namely unit differentiation both with old marines and the new ones. There is no real reason for example that power weapons of the non-multi wound variant need to have so many god-damned variants. Obviously models for them should still be made, but on the scale of 40k is played at there is no meaningful difference between having a power mace, a power sword, a power axe, a power lance, a power halberd, etc. Or even a powerfist and a chainfist. You could reduce those options to simply the groups of "light, medium, and heavy" to streamline balance and reduce the need to worry about a crazy amount of data points with the current power weapon list. Plus it allows anybody to model weapons as whatever they want.

 

Think similar to how Battletech handles autocannons. AC/10 is a big gun, but it isn't a specific model of weapon like heavy bolters or an autocannon. It's just a BFG with with the weapon being determined either by velocity or bore size, the result is the same so it doesn't really matter what it's modeled as. We don't need a bazillion boltguns with different rules, and we could likely fold bolters and other similar performing weapons into the same "medium arms" weapons group for infantry. Similar to what Warhammer Epic did in some respects, only differentiating its "small arms" more greatly given the scale.

 

Weapon loadouts only really matter on the extremely tactical level of Kill Team where a different gun or melee weapon could be the deciding factor in a fight. But nobody is winning a company or brigade level battle as represented by most 40k games because hey one dude brought an M429 instead of an M60. Likewise the minutia between a lascannon and a meltagun doesn't matter. They're both anti tank weapons and if you get hit by one you're gonna have a really bad day. The only thing that might be taken into account is range difference, ie, "heavy AT gun short" or "heavy AT gun long" as subtypes for weapons instead of the current system. Where EVERY SINGLE WEAPON has specific rules because the game was conceived of for a kill-team scale instead of the modern scale, which is too big for the old rule scale to work effectively and source of our woes.

[Scribe]

Exactly right. But that level of abstraction doesn't sit well. :p

[Volt]

Exactly right. But that level of abstraction doesn't sit well.

It sits well enough, considering games like Bolt Action are popular. There's no differentiation between individual weapon systems, just what rough role they fill in the unit. The only trouble would be crowbarring snowflake loadouts from some players until they realize that such a system offers the same dynamic combat, only much easier to balance so you're far less likely to get tabled on turn 2 and go home to vandalize the ice cream in the freezer. Hell 40k is if anything, aberrant in how it treats weapons compared to most other wargames, even those made by Games Workshop.