WARCOM: basic 40k SURVEY! - discussion

[Triszin]

Of note: the survey is extremely limited

The survey is also gated, it will weed out certain selections and prevent the open response section from appearing

 

 

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/11/04/your-chance-to-make-warhammer-40000-even-better-with-the-gamers-survey/

Quote

he survey is open until the 11th of November, so you’ve got a few days to fill it in. If you have any friends who play Warhammer 40,000 (or used to – we’d love to hear from past players too!), please send them a link to ensure that the Warhammer studio can hear from the widest range of voices.

Hello,

 

The purpose of this thread is so that; We as a community can discuss and coordinate our Survey responses, Help make some requests more realistic, and improve the community, and the game.

 

 

I will try my best to compile everyones requests, but my time is limited so any help is greatly appreciated.

 

 

so ideas/prompts o kick things off:

 

What would you like to see:

1. Model-Range support wise?

2. Rules and balance

3. Lore direction: advancement and exploration on warzones/locations in 40k (ghoul stars, halo zone, outer dark, ex)

4. Specialist games: support ideas/cross overs

 

things to consider:

what faction needs some serious help, love, and something new.

Edited November 4, 2021 by Triszin

[Joe]

Worth noting this survey is about the game of Warhammer 40,000 specifically - not miniatures, not lore or other ranges. Please don't encourage people to fill the survey with wasteful responses; they'll just toss them in the bin.

 

Beyond that, I pushed for quarterly updates - and I mentioned a desire for seeing older weapon options brought back (at least in Crusade), as the current system isn't particularly thematic / fun. It's fine in Crusade / Open, where there shouldn't be as much concern about balance.

[Evil Eye]

Filled it out and listed my concerns, notably the game becoming too videogame-y and not "simulationist" enough, and also a desire for a return of more options for models. Nice that they've at least put this out, even if I suspect it will go nowhere.

[Triszin]

my quick thoughts.

 

1. Model-Range support wise?

- Tyranids need some updated models/new models. At the very least, Lictors, death leapers, and new Genestealer models. also wouldnt mind some new "primarch tier" Tyranid creatures ( so long as they be Eldritch cthulu horror monsters.)

- Imperial guard/astra militarum: More KT/Munda style boxes for the basic troop sub factions.

- Tau: auxillary focus

- Primaris marines: take a break

 

2. Rules and balance

- Vehicles need a sharp rework, most are not usable ( cost is usually way to high) some are overtly over powered.

- power creep is a significant issue, and older codexs look stale by comparison ( even recent ones)

 

3. Lore direction: advancement and exploration on warzones/locations in 40k (ghoul stars, halo zone, outer dark, ex)

 

4. Specialist games: support ideas/cross overs

- Make a generic "pdf" force for guard to take Munda gang models

Worth noting this survey is about the game of Warhammer 40,000 specifically - not miniatures, not lore or other ranges. Please don't encourage people to fill the survey with wasteful responses; they'll just toss them in the bin.

 

Beyond that, I pushed for quarterly updates - and I mentioned a desire for seeing older weapon options brought back (at least in Crusade), as the current system isn't particularly thematic / fun. It's fine in Crusade / Open, where there shouldn't be as much concern about balance.

The game of 40k, is deeply connected the the figures and model ranges within it. to pretend it isnt, is to pretend GW is not a model company first.

[Imren]

• Change back to the old vehicle rules so that positioning matters again. toughtness and wound vaules fits infantry/cavalry, MC and such but for vehicles they make the play a bit bland.

For the models: Go back to the modular design of the space marine parts so that conversion and weapon options/swaps etc are easier.

[Dark Shepherd]

Worth noting this survey is about the game of Warhammer 40,000 specifically - not miniatures, not lore or other ranges. Please don't encourage people to fill the survey with wasteful responses; they'll just toss them in the bin.

 

Beyond that, I pushed for quarterly updates - and I mentioned a desire for seeing older weapon options brought back (at least in Crusade), as the current system isn't particularly thematic / fun. It's fine in Crusade / Open, where there shouldn't be as much concern about balance.

I went quarterly too

Then toughen up vehicles

Abolish faction specific secondaries

Book bloat

[TrawlingCleaner]

Completed the survey and filled in the open text box:

 

Less strategems and removal of faction targetting stratagems, e.g the Iron Warriors stratagem that targets Imperial Fists. They're impossible to balance

 

Removal of faction specific secondaries, clearly created seperate of each other and are wildly imbalanced

 

Vehicle and Monster buffs across the board unless they have an invulnerable save

 

Quarterly Points updates and balance changes

 

I think that 9th could be one of the best rulesets they've created, the core of the game is absolutely there but some aspects of it are bringing it down.They've listened to previous community questionnaries so here's hoping the continue listening to the community.

 

I don't envy whoever has to go through the answers

Edited November 4, 2021 by TrawlingCleaner

[Noserenda]

Pretty standard, emphasised how unfriendly matched play is to casual gamers right now and codex design is getting out of hand.

Popped in a request for more Sisters of Silence, even as legends, at the end.

[Grand Master Laertes]

I asked for rules to use the Forgeworld Mechanicum models in games of 40k, as was promised with the (now cancelled) Fires of Cyraxus book.

[AenarIT]

Quarterly updates was my preferred choice as well. 

And please, please, please move the rules distribution to an online database. Like D&D Beyond. 

Something easy to check even with a random internet browser and that gets updated every time there is an errata or points change. 

Right now it already exists but it's not an official source. 

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

I asked for quarterly updates (which I can see is trend ).

 

Said there were too many stratagems.

 

I mentioned that I didn't really like HI rules because they aren't fun for my opponent.

 

I also mentioned that the campaign supplements need to be space out further from codex releases.

[Kenzaburo]

Took the survey and added quite a detailed answer to the free response field:

 

Hello there,

 

the presented choices are, as with all multiple choice surveys, a bit too basic. Warhammer 40k has always been fun, if you are into wargames and miniature games. But it is not very approachable to new players - you need minis, ideally paint them and they cost quite a bit. What's more, you need to leaf through tons of basic rules, than through your codex with army-wide rules, then stack unit rules and the warlord trait on top and as if that was not enough moving parts, you got stratagems. Those are situational rules you need to keep in mind. And to be honest, it makes the game exhausting, especially the sheer amount of it. Tons of stratagems for marines with even more for specific chapters. Universal special rules, which in itself referred to other USRs, were bad enough. But all of those stratagems - that's just overkill. 

 

And while some rules are very thematic and thus cool, others are so blatantly sales-oriented, that I'd call them disruptive (no Firstborn in Primaris vehicles and vice versa). Don't inject those so blatantly. Also reduce the amount of clutter around the game. To a game I need to bring minis, the rules, the codex, the faction cards, the FAQs, the dice and now some more books with faction-specific rules. Let me demonstrate: The ork codex was released about 3 months ago, now you're going to release Octarius 2 with specific ork rules for speedfreaks, blood axes and looted vehicles. So only 3 months after buying THE rules update for a faction I already need an add-on. First day DLC has never felt right with video games, but with analogue games it's even weirder. I understand the benefits for the company, I'm a marketing guy myself, but as a customer this just leaves a bitter taste in my mouth, as I'm sure, the games designers will understand.

 

Also one minor gripe: The move to game mats in your publications - I get it, you're catering to the tourney crowd. But it was kinda sad to go through the 9th edition rules and see those sorry looking tables with no real theme and lackluster terrain compositions compared to all the older books with somewhat thematic boards and cool 3d terrain. And please stop adjusting the table sizes - some of the battles of 9th have seemed a bit strange, when armies start with such minor distances between them. 

 

Ah, one more thing: The edition release cycle - good lord, roughly 3 years is waaay too short. Consider this: A good amount of your players have grown with the game, as has their income. But with that come all those constraints of adult life, parenthood, job, you name it. And learning all those minimal rules changes from edition to edition has become more and more taxing the longer I've been in the hobby. One edition it's "If a unit charged, it get's to strike first", then it's "If a unit charged, it get's +1 A", now it depends on the army rule (Angels of Death) or maybe a stratagem. Those tiny changes are minimal facelifts with no real substance, they just hinder my gaming experience, because I got all those old rules in my head, too. So I keep checking the rules each game and now every 3 years you add new ones on top. More books, more clutter, more minimal changes. If you get to game maybe once a month at my age, that's already a lot. And that is 36 games at best for the life cycle. That's pretty short, considering how much money a customer like me brings to the table. 

 

Anyways, the game remains enjoyable enough, the minis are great, the whole setting is still my favorite after all those years in the hobby. So thank you for that.

 

 

It's long, I know. I just wrote down what came into my mind thinking about the game. It's also a bit personal, so mileage may vary for you guys. But that's how I feel about the current state of the game - mostly from a rules perspective.

 

EDIT: I also didn't like that they enforced me to pick 3 options on some answers even when I thought that no more than 2 at most were fitting. 

 

Overall, I have to say I liked 4th and 5th edition the most, they seemed the cleanest to me, with less clutter, fairly approachable rules and all that. But the amount of rules and situational rules via stratagems completely flabberghasted me when I played my first games of 9th ed recently. That was not approachable or easy to learn at all. And someone on this forum said it best: It's kinda annoying if you can't say much about a unit by looking at it's unit card/sheet. Rules are all over the place - which is as bad as the USRs were in 6th and 7th with it's referral loops.

Edited November 4, 2021 by Kenzaburo

[Special Officer Doofy]

I posted that my biggest and only real complaint is the codex creep and imbalance. Codexes should be out in the first year of an edition. Told them how I sold off my chaos space marines sitting in boxes because of how slow their update is coming.

 

Other than that less strategems, no faction secondaries, quarterly updates and mentioned if they bring back templates, vehicle facings or armor values I'll quit the game again.

 

Also, is the survey for everyone a co.uk? It went straight to British pounds on the income question when all my GW website visits have US selected.

[Tawnis]

I went with quarterly updates too. 

 

My notes were extensive but broad strokes: 

- Stratagem re-work to disincentivize just using the best couple over and over again because at that point it just feels like a buff to the unit. Suggested a possible once per game use of each stratagem over the current system. 

- More things that effect decision making on the table. Wish I'd remembered vehicle facing at the time :( 

- Rules centralizing. Suggested that army updates after the codex release be accessible on Warhammer + (Trying to take some baby steps, they certainly wouldn't have listened to "make the rules free").

- Expanded on thoughts on some of the multiple choice answers that weren't nuanced enough. 

- Suggested playtesting a alternating activation playstyle for the game. Not sure if it would be better or not, but that's what playtesting is for. 

- Suggested Kroot get a Harlequin style codex. If they made an HQ or two and brought back the Knarlocs, that's literally the same unit count as Harlequins. 

[Warhead01]

Did the survey. 
Hopefully my answers were reasonable but my whole situation seems to not be the normal as far as I can tell. 
In my block text answer I asked for a few changes to secondary objectives and objective scoring, points being scored at the end of a players turn or objectives being worth more point if at the end of a battle round. Also and or mandatory secondary objectives or random one but remove players being able to pick optimal secondary objectives that they can score with out interacting with their opponent. Force both players to fight. I realize this is probably not what a lot of people would want but that's how I feel about it for good or ill. I should have mentioned that some of the secondaries don't have the same possible pay out in points and that those should be addressed but I forgot. (Unless I am wrong about that?)  And also requested Rough riders/horse cavalry for the AM and free upgrades for unit leaders/squad leaders. As so far arming my own has been completely pointless in terms of actual game play. I also requested that power levels replace points with the cavate that wysiwyg is mandatory. Or at least that power levels require wysiwyg in the rule book. 

Anywhoo, I did my part. 

[Azekai]

I have stopped playing 9th. So many parts of this game seem purposefully engineered to be time consuming. It might just be my calcifying brain, but keeping up with all the new rules is a headache. Hell, list building alone is a chore; if not for battlescribe it would have been borderline impossible.

For my write-in, I said that secondaries should be scrapped or very clearly be made tertiary: "Instead of scoring 'slay the warlord' you and your opponent can agree upon other secondary choices at your discretion. Our suggestions for this scenario are..." Also unique secondaries for factions are a giant balancing nightmare. I like the idea of new ones being explored as new factions are released, but make them generic options everyone can access. 

I also think stratagems should be scrapped or at least reworked and severely capped. Many of them are so specialized they hardly see the light of day.
 

[Magos Takatus]

I commented that I think the game is complicated to get back into with all the overlapping warlord traits, stratagems and primary and secondary objectives. I've bought a device from schooner labs and I use battlescribe to organize my self. Without those it would be a pen and notebook to keep track of everything. The addition of rules for both Skitarii and Cult Mechanicus are great from a narrative sense but tricky to memorise. I think I explained myself better here than in the survey unfortunately. Oh well. 

[Dark Shepherd]

Splitting matched play in the how do you play part was interesting, would love matched play to go standard plus tournament

 

Strats that depend on power levels can go jump in a lake for sure.

More strats being one use would be a good change and or make them all 1 point each so nothing too crazy abounding

 

Hadnt thought of it til I saw the Auspex tactics vid on it but getting rid of marine doctrines to avoid rules clutter was suggested there, Id like that if they kept permanent doctrine bonuses instead, would make the chapters stand out from each other a bit more

[Kenzaburo]

Splitting matched play in the how do you play part was interesting, would love matched play to go standard plus tournament

 

Strats that depend on power levels can go jump in a lake for sure.

More strats being one use would be a good change and or make them all 1 point each so nothing too crazy abounding

 

Hadnt thought of it til I saw the Auspex tactics vid on it but getting rid of marine doctrines to avoid rules clutter was suggested there, Id like that if they kept permanent doctrine bonuses instead, would make the chapters stand out from each other a bit more

Funny that you mention doctrines. After 3 games of 9th I hadn‘t used doctrines once. I simply forgot about them - I was so busy keeping an eye on all of the Angels of Death subrules, my psychic abilities, the auras and the stratagems, that the doctrines just got lost. 

 

But all of these elements combined make the game absolutely unapproachable for someone only used to video games and/or board games. On top of that there were the victory point conditions and my own command points to keep track of. And it also didn’t help that we were playing crusade games, so had to keep kill tallies and the like. The overall game still remained fun, but I think that was more due to my love of Warhammer in general. At the end of two games I was mentally exhausted - and not because of the amount of tactical finesse required. 

[LameBeard]

I completed it but maybe I should have just pasted a link to our “what would you change about 9th?” thread. Many have said it better than me!

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

I told them I find strats fun and thematic, but there’s way too many and some of them are annoyingly specific.

 

5 army wide strats, and then 1 or 2 per FOC slot that effect all units in that slot regardless of keyword.

[Warhead01]

 

Splitting matched play in the how do you play part was interesting, would love matched play to go standard plus tournament

 

Strats that depend on power levels can go jump in a lake for sure.

More strats being one use would be a good change and or make them all 1 point each so nothing too crazy abounding

 

Hadnt thought of it til I saw the Auspex tactics vid on it but getting rid of marine doctrines to avoid rules clutter was suggested there, Id like that if they kept permanent doctrine bonuses instead, would make the chapters stand out from each other a bit more

Funny that you mention doctrines. After 3 games of 9th I hadn‘t used doctrines once. I simply forgot about them - I was so busy keeping an eye on all of the Angels of Death subrules, my psychic abilities, the auras and the stratagems, that the doctrines just got lost. 

 

But all of these elements combined make the game absolutely unapproachable for someone only used to video games and/or board games. On top of that there were the victory point conditions and my own command points to keep track of. And it also didn’t help that we were playing crusade games, so had to keep kill tallies and the like. The overall game still remained fun, but I think that was more due to my love of Warhammer in general. At the end of two games I was mentally exhausted - and not because of the amount of tactical finesse required. 

 

I find the doctrines to be the least amount of trouble for me. the rest is a headache.

 

I agre it's not really a user friendly game system. 

[Dark Shepherd]

 

 

Splitting matched play in the how do you play part was interesting, would love matched play to go standard plus tournament

 

Strats that depend on power levels can go jump in a lake for sure.

More strats being one use would be a good change and or make them all 1 point each so nothing too crazy abounding

 

Hadnt thought of it til I saw the Auspex tactics vid on it but getting rid of marine doctrines to avoid rules clutter was suggested there, Id like that if they kept permanent doctrine bonuses instead, would make the chapters stand out from each other a bit more

Funny that you mention doctrines. After 3 games of 9th I hadn‘t used doctrines once. I simply forgot about them - I was so busy keeping an eye on all of the Angels of Death subrules, my psychic abilities, the auras and the stratagems, that the doctrines just got lost.

 

But all of these elements combined make the game absolutely unapproachable for someone only used to video games and/or board games. On top of that there were the victory point conditions and my own command points to keep track of. And it also didn’t help that we were playing crusade games, so had to keep kill tallies and the like. The overall game still remained fun, but I think that was more due to my love of Warhammer in general. At the end of two games I was mentally exhausted - and not because of the amount of tactical finesse required.

Some of the doctrine stuff makes no sense either eg short range grenades getting a bonus in the long range orientated devastator doctrine?

 

Plus the super doctrines not kicking in til phase 3 or being gone after turn 1 is deflating

[Noserenda]

Doctrines are the absolute worst rule in 40k imho, a more perfect example of a stupid, pointless rule that just adds complexity there is not.

[Captain Idaho]

I raised the issue about the bloat - the 6 Primaris bolters and 2 Firstborn bolters do little to foster a quick and clean game and what does it really add to the game? Same with special rules bloat and why on earth get rid of the Universal Special rules? I mean, that is an update that can work for everything all at once!

 

I ticked boxes that said the game was too complicated and too many rules where I could.

 

I also mentioned monpose models making the hobby harder to collect and limiting choices, citing 4 sets of 5 Flayed Ones if I want 20 as an example.

 

Oh and I said to stop marginalising Firstborn! Primaris are too big and I collected Custodes for a reason and don't want different colour versions called Primaris.

 

So they'll ignore me likely. :)