goonhammer article on 40k - that it's overwhelming now

[ThePenitentOne]

 

 

Special Rules

USR's

 

D6, D3, Fixed Values, or a combination.

 

You already have a ton of variability. A literal TON of ranges. Do we REALLY need statagems to temp buff units? Why?

 

Why do we need another system of resource to track?

 

Why do we need random (I've hated random crap since they tried to keep pushing it on us in like 6th or something!) objectives?

 

What do these things add, that having variance in the dice doesnt already provide?

 

 

 

 

From my perspective as a storyteller and narrative player who has always enjoyed 40k most when it leaned into its potential as a tabletop/ RPG hybrid (Inquisitor 28), the issue with the system you describe is that every army feels kinda samey. USR's encourage a feeling of samey-ness; 20-30 of these rules exist- this faction gets these five; another faction gets three of those five with only two that are different; a third faction gets the same five as the second faction with one of it's common ones swapped out for another... This despite the fact that faction A is humans, faction B is six limbed aliens and faction C is giant robots.

 

Now sure, I'm over simplifying. And maybe there is some deeper degree of difference that you can create with USRs. But it isn't like the difference engine that is 9th, that's for sure.

 

And again, I get it- if balance and ease of play are your highest priorities, that system IS going to be preferable- because samey is more balanced and easier to remember and track. It's easier to teach, it's easier to play and because it's more balanced, it is better for competitive play. For many, if not most players, these are the priorities. 

 

Now if you assume for a second that someone else's priority MIGHT be army uniqueness and adequate sub-faction distinction with every army... USR's and variation via stats lose their glow a little. Samey- though it has all the positive characteristics expressed above, is the exact opposite of what someone with differentiation as a priority wants. And I know, if you are in majority category A, it can be hard to even understand that minority category B exists, let alone relate to them. But we are here.

 

Now lets take this a little further. If you play the game as written, but you just don't battle-forge your armies EVERYTHING you hate disappears. Seriously. Army purity? Gone. Subfaction Rules? Gone. All strats except BRB strats? Gone. For real.

 

So if that's what's bumming you out about 9th, isn't what's really bumming you out that either: 1) YOU insist on battleforging despite hating it; 2) YOUR PLAYER GROUP insisting on battleforging despite you (and ostensibly many of them) hating it, or 3) TOURNAMENTS insisting on battleforging despite you and ostensibly, many in your peer group hating it?

 

CUZ honestly dude, if I had a nickel for every post that sounds like "This game would be great if not for strats" I'd be able to afford the 10th edition that everyone seems to think is necessary to fix the problem, despite the fact that:

 

ALL. YOU. NEED. TO. DO. IS. STOP. BATTLEFORGING.

 

Seriously. I just read it at the very beginning of the strat page in my shiny new GSC book: if my army does not contain a GSC detachment, I can't use a single strat in that book. Problem solved. No need to repeat the edition churn. I honestly hope some clever TO figures out a way to make an Open tournament work someday and it grows to rival GT... Because I think if that happened, more people would realize just how versatile 9th is as written if you just look outside the matched rules every now and again.

 

And the best part?

 

I and others who happen to think that this is the best the game has every been get to keep on doing what we're doing and everyone else can continue to pretend we don't exist.

 

(The Diplomacy Clause: There may be some unintended edginess in here, and apologies in advance. Please understand that though I quoted you, I am responding more to the zeitgeist than any one person's post. I also know it isn't as simple as I'm making it- not battleforging doesn't mean you get datacard smoke launchers back for example; it just means they're gone. I also know that Open needs more structure for list building than it has if it's going to be a viable alternative to matched. But the point remains: if layered rules are truly your biggest problem, it's actually easier to get rid of them than it is to keep them in the game.)

Edited January 18, 2022 by ThePenitentOne

[Scribe]

Look man, I'm not coming after your Crusade rules, but you have got to see that your not making sense here.

 

DE in 5th is 'the same' as Orks in 5th? Is the same as a GK Paladin Army? Is the same as Custodes now? Come on man!

 

You can have light tanks, massed infantry, heavy tanks, flying, jetbikes, battle suits, bugs, and these things are the same?

 

My DE felt PLENTY unique in contrast to Marines, to Necrons, to Grey Knights, to Nids.

 

I'm not saying you cannot have special rules, books have had special rules since well, a really long time, in fact I'll go back to that (near perfect) well, the Dark Eldar of 5th.

 

Power From Pain - A system of resource which was lore accurate, and used (!!) USR's to reflect it. Perfect.

Night Vision - USR

Fleet - USR

Combat Drugs - A system of modification that again, was very lore accurate, and simple to track.

Poison - Easy, simple, USR based.

 

You still have special rules, you still have unique weapons, and if your going to tell me that their profiles (Unit, Vehicle) were not also very lore accurate, then we are simply going to have to agree to disagree.

 

In what fathomable way, is that improved by over complicating the game with another generic resource, stratagems to manage and track, and 'bespoke' rules that could simply be cleaned up and put into USR's?

 

EDIT: I mean seriously, my Harlequin weapons now need this toxic system just to work? WHY?! 

Edited January 18, 2022 by Scribe

[Blurf]

40k would be much better if it moved to d10s or even d20s and they further differentiated the different creatures stats accordingly with the wider range of possible results, couple that with bringing back universal special rules and limiting the number of unique datasheet specific rules where possible. It would probably also be good for the game for objectives to be randomly drawn from a deck rather than chosen and having alternating activations.

We've had random objectives before, huge chunks on the community hated them.

 

USRs for some things would be fine but the overpopulation of USRs was part of what killed seventh.

 

To switch to D10s or especially D20s would require a ground up rewrite of basically every aspect of the game that has to do with math. Otherwise you end up with Ork armies still chucking out 120 dice only now they're D20s so it's hilariously stupid to try and count successes without knocking half the dice on the table to different results.

 

Alternating Activations is fine, but in general I think it would be more of crutch for the lethality problem than anything. It results in a lot of weird games with your activation count. People trying to get 20-30 activations so they can last-first or have uncontested moves at the end of turns. Happens in star wars legion a lot and they're limited to a range of 9-13 activations per army. Creates crazy issues when the range is 3 to 40.

[Wulf Vengis]

I thought What killed 7th was the "free" add-ons an armylist might get that left games severely unbalanced from player/faction to player/faction? Such as getting dedicated transports for free for your troops choices or the ability to take squadrons of things like predators instead of 1 per slot? Or the ability to over use soup lists granting a players army the ability to stack core rules of each faction within their armylist as opposed to a primary and secondary forces only affecting themselves?

 

Maybe I just misunderstood everyone else's complaints with 7th.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

I thought What killed 7th was the "free" add-ons an armylist might get that left games severely unbalanced from player/faction to player/faction? Such as getting dedicated transports for free for your troops choices or the ability to take squadrons of things like predators instead of 1 per slot? Or the ability to over use soup lists granting a players army the ability to stack core rules of each faction within their armylist as opposed to a primary and secondary forces only affecting themselves?

 

Maybe I just misunderstood everyone else's complaints with 7th.

 

I think free summoning, and invisibility were also pretty major problems in 7th but yes free points and crazy buffs from formations was a large piece of it.

[ThePenitentOne]

Look man, I'm not coming after your Crusade rules, but you have got to see that your not making sense here.

Appreciate that, but if you're advocating for a new edition, you kinda are. To be fair to you, I'm not 100% sure you are advocating for a new edition, but it seems to me like the degree of change for which you are advocating for could only achieved via a new edition. So while you don't intend to come for my crusade... You're coming for my Crusade.g

 

DE in 5th is 'the same' as Orks in 5th? Is the same as a GK Paladin Army? Is the same as Custodes now? Come on man!

 

You can have light tanks, massed infantry, heavy tanks, flying, jetbikes, battle suits, bugs, and these things are the same?

 

My DE felt PLENTY unique in contrast to Marines, to Necrons, to Grey Knights, to Nids.

 

I'm not saying you cannot have special rules, books have had special rules since well, a really long time, in fact I'll go back to that (near perfect) well, the Dark Eldar of 5th.

All of this is absolutely fair, and I don't entirely disagree- at the time they felt fairly unique to me too. But here's where it breaks down a bit:

 

How different was the Kabal of the Obsidian Rose than the Kabal of the Flayed Skull in fifth? How different was the Order of the Argent Shroud from the Order of the Valorous Heart? I know that by 5th SOME factions had meaningful subfaction distinction other than just Marines- Guard did, I think Chaos did; and if 5th was the build-your-own-nid edition, then I'm with you- I loved that dex. But the point is, there were still haves and have-nots for subfaction distinction in fifth. The line about light tanks, heavy tanks, mased infantry etc? Those distinctions still exist in 9th, and I never claimed that they haven't existed in every version of the game.

 

But as I said, I will concede that factions felt distinct enough at the time. Still feel like they are more distinct now, but that's not your point.

 

Power From Pain - A system of resource which was lore accurate, and used (!!) USR's to reflect it. Perfect.

I'd like to run a comparison between Power from Pain expressed through USR vs current power from pain. I didn't buy into DE until 8th, though I did have prior dexes, because I was always hovering around it. Having less experience than you, I'll concede here too: all the USR's used to express power from pain were probably used by other armies other than just DE, but that's probably also true of the current components of PfP, so it's a wash. Correct me if I'm wrong though- weren't all the PfP's in 5th gated behind achieving kills though? So that if you found yourself out classed on the battlefield, you might never get any of the benefits from the rules at all?

 

Night Vision - USR

Didn't Marines get this too cuz power armour helmets? Could be wrong- it's been a while.

 

Fleet - USR

Loved this one- my fave USR! My mighty Genestealers got it- though their cult army wasn't fortunate enough to exist from 3- tag end of 7th. But here's the thing: now you can still have fleet, but you can be differentiated from other factions that also have fleet, because you might have Fire and Fade in addition to fleet, while another faction may have Fall Back and Shoot in addition to Fleet, while a third faction might have just fleet. In 5th, if you were fast you got fleet. Of course, they still had Initiative too, but wasn't it 5th where everyone's move stat became the same? Or was that 3rd? either way, we don't have initiative, but we've got fight first/ last so that's a wash. Overall I think there is a greater variety of representations of speed in 9th than 5th. Like I said though, did love me some fleet.

 

Combat Drugs - A system of modification that again, was very lore accurate, and simple to track.

And again, still exist, but now have strats and other rules that CAN interact with combat drugs and modified, making it more interesting... and those rules are optional, so if you don't like them, you don't have to use them.

 

Poison - Easy, simple, USR based.

Still exists, but like combat drugs, can now be influenced by a variety of optional rules beyond the simple numeric variable afforded by the much inferior USR based version.

 

 

You still have special rules, you still have unique weapons,

Yes, for sure. But like with fleet, combat drugs and poison, as mentioned above- you could have the basic special rule, but that was it- that was the whole dynamism right there- you either had it or you didn't. Now if you've got it, there are layers to it; certain subfactions or units can use it differently. I know YOU think that's a weakness. I do not.

 

and if your going to tell me that their profiles (Unit, Vehicle) were not also very lore accurate, then we are simply going to have to agree to disagree.

I'm not. They were totally lore accurate. What I would say now though, is that they have other mechanisms than merely their profiles to match the lore. I will concede to some inconsistencies in 9th- I think that most 9th ed vehicles benefit from subfaction rules now- so an Argent Shroud Exorcist can be different from an Ebon Chalice Exorcist- pretty sure that wasn't possible in 5th. And I know that 8th dexes don't have this capability, but again, that's edition churn, and that kind of inconsistency will be gone soon... only to return with 10th- so again, a new edition AIN'T the solution. 

 

In what fathomable way, is that improved by over complicating the game with another generic resource, stratagems to manage and track, and 'bespoke' rules that could simply be cleaned up and put into USR's?

As explained in my analyses of formerly universal rules above, in the universal days, the measure of differentiation was "You had the rule or you didn't" and some USR's had an attached numerical variability. Now, the way to figure out which faction is the fastest is not merely "Does/ Does not have fleet" - it arises from the number of subfactions who possess speed based abilities x the number of auras that augment those abilities x the number of strats that boost speed and how many of those are situational/ unit based vs. universal. It's like comparing checkers to chess- both of which are great games. And again, I am not intimidated by that- I've wanted it for years. And you can still make it all go away by JUST. NOT. BATTLEFORGING. So why is it even an issue for you?

 

EDIT: I mean seriously, my Harlequin weapons now need this toxic system just to work? WHY?!

Yes, cuz now your Harlequins aren't just Harlequins- there are different troupes now, just like there have ALWAYS been different flavours of space marine. Maybe you didn't feel ripped off because a 'quin was a 'quin was a 'quin in previous editions, but some of us did. Because why shouldn't they have as many options as marines, guard and the lucky few who got subfactions in days gone by?

 

But don't worry, if the rumours hold true, they're get crammed back into the CWE dex, so we're bound to lose something in the translation. Maybe all 'quins will be exactly the same again and you can do a dance of joy while I light a candle in memory to faction with enough depth to fire up my imagination and wonder how good their bespoke Crusade content would have been if GW had stayed the course rather than caving in to the whims of those who wanted it all sacrificed on the altar of narrower Winrate differentials in some tournament in which I'll never play. Thanks for closing with such a stunning example of exactly what I fear is the future of my perfect game.

 

You started your response by saying you weren't coming for my Crusade. But GW already has; it was taken from the Inquisition; rumours are it will be taken from the Harlequins and Ynarri.  I hope White Dwarf gives some of it back, but I suspect they'll just keep giving it to yet another marine chapter every month instead.

 

Note: Edited for diplomacy and verbal de-escalation. Apologies for the original. 

Edited January 19, 2022 by ThePenitentOne

[MegaVolt87]

 

Look man, I'm not coming after your Crusade rules, but you have got to see that your not making sense here.

Appreciate that, but if you're advocating for a new edition, you kinda are. To be fair to you, I'm not 100% sure you are advocating for a new edition, but it seems to me like the degree of change for which you are advocating for could only achieved via a new edition. So while you don't intend to come for my crusade... You're coming for my Crusade.g

 

A new edition of warhammer is as inevitable as death and taxes. What matters is a current edition is as balanced and enjoyable as possible and the next one fixes the stuff that didn't work and not bin the stuff that was fine but changed for the sake of change. Its the best we can hope for because 40k will never have a fixed living ruleset. 

[Jings]

I kinda hate Stratagems. Not what they do so much as how they're implemented. I'm of the mind that instead of the current broad set of strats that can be applied to differing ranges of units, datasheets themselves should contain a number of distinct and situational abilities akin to Stratagems that can be activated (with command points?), with a number of limitations like limiting the amount of activations per phase or preventing multiples of a unit (barring troops) from activating per turn.

 

To me, the more information that can be contained within a datasheet the better. The replacement of unit abilities for Stratagems has largely been a detriment to the game imo and simply shifted complexity into another more awkward direction.

[Scribe]

 

Look man, I'm not coming after your Crusade rules, but you have got to see that your not making sense here.

Appreciate that, but if you're advocating for a new edition, you kinda are. To be fair to you, I'm not 100% sure you are advocating for a new edition, but it seems to me like the degree of change for which you are advocating for could only achieved via a new edition. So while you don't intend to come for my crusade... You're coming for my Crusade.g

 

DE in 5th is 'the same' as Orks in 5th? Is the same as a GK Paladin Army? Is the same as Custodes now? Come on man!

 

You can have light tanks, massed infantry, heavy tanks, flying, jetbikes, battle suits, bugs, and these things are the same?

 

My DE felt PLENTY unique in contrast to Marines, to Necrons, to Grey Knights, to Nids.

 

I'm not saying you cannot have special rules, books have had special rules since well, a really long time, in fact I'll go back to that (near perfect) well, the Dark Eldar of 5th.

All of this is absolutely fair, and I don't entirely disagree- at the time they felt fairly unique to me too. But here's where it breaks down a bit:

 

How different was the Kabal of the Obsidian Rose than the Kabal of the Flayed Skull in fifth? How different was the Order of the Argent Shroud from the Order of the Valorous Heart? I know that by 5th SOME factions had meaningful subfaction distinction other than just Marines- Guard did, I think Chaos did; and if 5th was the build-your-own-nid edition, then I'm with you- I loved that dex. But the point is, there were still haves and have-nots for subfaction distinction in fifth. The line about light tanks, heavy tanks, mased infantry etc? Those distinctions still exist in 9th, and I never claimed that they haven't existed in every version of the game.

 

But as I said, I will concede that factions felt distinct enough at the time. Still feel like they are more distinct now, but that's not your point.

 

Power From Pain - A system of resource which was lore accurate, and used (!!) USR's to reflect it. Perfect.

I'd like to run a comparison between Power from Pain expressed through USR vs current power from pain. I didn't buy into DE until 8th, though I did have prior dexes, because I was always hovering around it. Having less experience than you, I'll concede here too: all the USR's used to express power from pain were probably used by other armies other than just DE, but that's probably also true of the current components of PfP, so it's a wash. Correct me if I'm wrong though- weren't all the PfP's in 5th gated behind achieving kills though? So that if you found yourself out classed on the battlefield, you might never get any of the benefits from the rules at all?

 

Night Vision - USR

Didn't Marines get this too cuz power armour helmets? Could be wrong- it's been a while.

 

Fleet - USR

Loved this one- my fave USR! My mighty Genestealers got it- though their cult army wasn't fortunate enough to exist from 3- tag end of 7th. But here's the thing: now you can still have fleet, but you can be differentiated from other factions that also have fleet, because you might have Fire and Fade in addition to fleet, while another faction may have Fall Back and Shoot in addition to Fleet, while a third faction might have just fleet. In 5th, if you were fast you got fleet. Of course, they still had Initiative too, but wasn't it 5th where everyone's move stat became the same? Or was that 3rd? either way, we don't have initiative, but we've got fight first/ last so that's a wash. Overall I think there is a greater variety of representations of speed in 9th than 5th. Like I said though, did love me some fleet.

 

Combat Drugs - A system of modification that again, was very lore accurate, and simple to track.

And again, still exist, but now have strats and other rules that CAN interact with combat drugs and modified, making it more interesting... and those rules are optional, so if you don't like them, you don't have to use them.

 

Poison - Easy, simple, USR based.

Still exists, but like combat drugs, can now be influenced by a variety of optional rules beyond the simple numeric variable afforded by the much inferior USR based version.

 

 

You still have special rules, you still have unique weapons,

Yes, for sure. But like with fleet, combat drugs and poison, as mentioned above- you could have the basic special rule, but that was it- that was the whole dynamism right there- you either had it or you didn't. Now if you've got it, there are layers to it; certain subfactions or units can use it differently. I know YOU think that's a weakness. I do not.

 

and if your going to tell me that their profiles (Unit, Vehicle) were not also very lore accurate, then we are simply going to have to agree to disagree.

I'm not. They were totally lore accurate. What I would say now though, is that they have other mechanisms than merely their profiles to match the lore. I will concede to some inconsistencies in 9th- I think that most 9th ed vehicles benefit from subfaction rules now- so an Argent Shroud Exorcist can be different from an Ebon Chalice Exorcist- pretty sure that wasn't possible in 5th. And I know that 8th dexes don't have this capability, but again, that's edition churn, and that kind of inconsistency will be gone soon... only to return with 10th- so again, a new edition AIN'T the solution. 

 

In what fathomable way, is that improved by over complicating the game with another generic resource, stratagems to manage and track, and 'bespoke' rules that could simply be cleaned up and put into USR's?

As explained in my analyses of formerly universal rules above, in the universal days, the measure of differentiation was "You had the rule or you didn't" and some USR's had an attached numerical variability. Now, the way to figure out which faction is the fastest is not merely "Does/ Does not have fleet" - it arises from the number of subfactions who possess speed based abilities x the number of auras that augment those abilities x the number of strats that boost speed and how many of those are situational/ unit based vs. universal. It's like comparing checkers to chess. And again, I am not intimidated by that- I've wanted it for years. And you can still make it all go away by JUST. NOT. BATTLEFORGING. So why is it even a damn issue for you?

 

EDIT: I mean seriously, my Harlequin weapons now need this toxic system just to work? WHY?!

Yes, cuz now your Harlequins aren't just Harlequins- there are different troupes now, just like there have ALWAYS been different flavours of space marine. Maybe you didn't feel ripped off because a 'quin was a 'quin was a 'quin in previous editions, but some of us did. Because why shouldn't they have as many options as marines, guard and the lucky few who got subfactions in days gone by?

 

But don't worry, if the rumours hold true, they're get crammed back into the CWE dex, so we're bound to lose something in the translation. Maybe all 'quins will be exactly the same again and you can do a dance of joy while I light a candle in memory to faction with enough depth to fire up my imagination and wonder how good their bespoke Crusade content would have been if GW had stayed the F$%&ing course rather than caving in to the whims of those who wanted it all sacrificed on the altar of narrower Winrate differentials in some BS tournament. Thanks for closing with such a stunning example of exactly what I fear is the future of my perfect game.

 

 

1. Hopefully GW will complete the codex cycle and deliver a 'complete' 9th Edition which gives you Crusade rules for every book, in a close to unified and consistent manner. As someone who suffered for a LONG time with the 4th Edition Chaos book, trust me I am not a fan of edition churn.

 

It will happen though, new Editions spike sales and make GW mountains of money.

 

 How different was the Kabal of the Obsidian Rose than the Kabal of the Flayed Skull in fifth? ...

 

 

Not very. The subfaction system (and custom factions!) which GW has struck upon for 9th, is pretty great. Almost like they should have never gotten away from it (*cough* CSM 3.5 remains one of the greatest things every printed *cough*). I'm not asking for subfactions to go away, at all.

 

 Correct me if I'm wrong though- weren't all the PfP's in 5th gated behind achieving kills though? So that if you found yourself out classed on the battlefield, you might never get any of the benefits from the rules at all?

 

 

That is correct, it was a feast or famine kind of army at times, but man if I didnt love it.

 

 USR Stuff

 

 

I think we are on board here for the most part, you seem to want additional layers on top of USR, I want them to simply be universal, as I believe it leads to a cleaner, more concise and easier to manage system.

 

 Now, the way to figure out which faction is the fastest is not merely "Does/ Does not have fleet" - it arises from the number of subfactions who possess speed based abilities x the number of auras that augment those abilities x the number of strats that boost speed and how many of those are situational/ unit based vs. universal. It's like comparing checkers to chess. And again, I am not intimidated by that- I've wanted it for years. And you can still make it all go away by JUST. NOT. BATTLEFORGING. So why is it even a damn issue for you?

 

 

Because its bloat.

 

USR? Great.

Subfaction? Great.

Aura's? Ehhhh we are getting out of hand.

Strats?! Please stop.

 

Its not about being intimidated. I play D&D 3.5 and PF1 in comparison to D&D 5e for example because I dont want to lose out on too much crunch, but there is a trade off here. If a single game of 40K is measure in over 3 hours...I have a problem with that.

 

Not battleforging doesnt solve my issue, because it doesnt provide the streamlined experience I am looking for, to keep the game time manageable.

 

 Yes, cuz now your Harlequins aren't just Harlequins- there are different troupes now, just like there have ALWAYS been different flavours of space marine. Maybe you didn't feel ripped off because a 'quin was a 'quin was a 'quin in previous editions, but some of us did. Because why shouldn't they have as many options as marines, guard and the lucky few who got subfactions in days gone by?

 

 

Granted, this is just a rumour, and maybe there are details I'm missing, but you seem to think that this about different troupes (subfactions) which already existed (6th? 7th? I dont remember when I bought my Harlequins) and thats not my understanding of the rumour in discussion.

 

My understanding is you have 3 weapons, which have an identical profile (which was unique before) and now the only difference is, you have to 'activate my trap card' to pull out a 'gotcha' moment and turn on an extra layer of rules, which as far as I am aware, is not able to be countered?

 

Am I wrong in that?

[Wulf Vengis]

The idea that 40k can be played as a tcg/rpg/videogame/ttwargame is where the rules begin to breakdown i feel. The game is too busy trying to be ALL forms of hobby game at once and filling this "quota" as it were is drowning the game piles of data. Data that (for the most part) was already implemented in a more efficient manner in past editions.

9th is for all intents and purposes 2nd resurrected and it's beginning to show in ways that aren't exactly healthy. Even if the game/company is doing the best it's ever done these aspects of bloat, contradictions and over complication are staring us all in the face, and we all have different levels of tolerance for it.

[ThePenitentOne]

Snip:

 

Tried to repy but couldn't get the quotes to work- normal view doesn't show quote tags so I can't parse it at all

 

And the lack of text wrapping in code mode just kills me.

 

Too late to start over.

 

Might try again tomorrow. Thanks for cool response to my monster post.

 

G'night!

Edited January 19, 2022 by ThePenitentOne

[Scribe]

The nested quote monster is about to implode the thread. :D

 

Ultimately, 'when in rome'. I used to play competitively, went to lots of tournaments, won some, got smashed in others.

 

To me, in my experience, you play the 'tournament format' or you...dont play at all.

 

I had a buddy we played against eachother most weeks through 6th to 8th. 

 

We knew the various things to abuse, we knew the lists to play and beat, but we never brought them out. We had roughly the same idea of what is a fun game, and roughly the same idea of what is lore accurate, but still effective so we play a ton.

 

By the end of 7th into 8th, I just wasnt liking what I was seeing.

 

Yeah, I'm flipping through my Ad Mech codex, and...honestly its Stratagems. I hate them lol. I can deal with the Data Sheet = Model "Chapterhouse" situation, though I hate it, I can deal even with AuraBubbleHammer, though I really dont like what it does to the 'flow' of the game, but I get to Stratagems, and I just absolutely hate them.

 

Now, I flip through my Necron (9th) book? I get to the subfaction (Ancient Dynasties) section?

 

Love it, just love it.

 

Legit though, I think its Stratagems. I just loathe them, and I havent liked them since they were added.

[Orange Knight]

I think the mission style is what started the death of 40k as anything resembling an "elegant game".

 

The Nova/ITC inspired missions were a big departure from the style that GW employed in 8th, 7th and prior. Just playing a matched play mission requires a vast amount of admin, book keeping, planning, etc.

You could keep track of missions and scoring prior to this with simple memory and nothing more.

 

Also, the constant adjustment, errata, FAQs, etc that often times change the way a codex functions entirely, are detrimental to the elegance of even starting to play a game.

[phandaal]

I think the mission style is what started the death of 40k as anything resembling an "elegant game".

 

The Nova/ITC inspired missions were a big departure from the style that GW employed in 8th, 7th and prior. Just playing a matched play mission requires a vast amount of admin, book keeping, planning, etc.

You could keep track of missions and scoring prior to this with simple memory and nothing more.

 

Also, the constant adjustment, errata, FAQs, etc that often times change the way a codex functions entirely, are detrimental to the elegance of even starting to play a game.

Billing Matched Play as the premiere way to play 40k was a mistake. People do want a common ruleset, but any time a comparison is done between "competitive" and "casual" modes of play in games, people pick the casual mode.

[Panzer]

 

I think the mission style is what started the death of 40k as anything resembling an "elegant game".

 

The Nova/ITC inspired missions were a big departure from the style that GW employed in 8th, 7th and prior. Just playing a matched play mission requires a vast amount of admin, book keeping, planning, etc.

You could keep track of missions and scoring prior to this with simple memory and nothing more.

 

Also, the constant adjustment, errata, FAQs, etc that often times change the way a codex functions entirely, are detrimental to the elegance of even starting to play a game.

Billing Matched Play as the premiere way to play 40k was a mistake. People do want a common ruleset, but any time a comparison is done between "competitive" and "casual" modes of play in games, people pick the casual mode.

 

 

Matched Play is not the problem, really. It's the most robust way to play for pick up games and has been for a long time. Most people simply prefer playing with rules that provide the most fair baseline. The real problem was mixing tournament play into basic matched play.

[OldWherewolf]

The idea that 40k can be played as a tcg/rpg/videogame/ttwargame is where the rules begin to breakdown i feel. The game is too busy trying to be ALL forms of hobby game at once and filling this "quota" as it were is drowning the game piles of data. Data that (for the most part) was already implemented in a more efficient manner in past editions.

9th is for all intents and purposes 2nd resurrected and it's beginning to show in ways that aren't exactly healthy. Even if the game/company is doing the best it's ever done these aspects of bloat, contradictions and over complication are staring us all in the face, and we all have different levels of tolerance for it.

True, but this is intentional by GW, and 40k new editions are part of their business model.  Keep making something more and more ridiculous until they have to reset with a new editon.

 

Have you seen the graphics from 30+ years ago?  40K was a comparable video game back then.  A gamepad had like 6 buttons, now they have 20.  There's so many moving parts my old bones can't keep up anymore.

 

The a big problem with putting abilities on datasheets in that when would the ability get used.  Take Transhuman for example.  It's a use-once-across-multiple-units strat.  If it's on every datasheet for every primaris, can it be used by every one of them, or just 1?  If just one, why print it on every data sheet. 

 

Strats represent limited-used abilities that (are supposed to) require decisions and draining a limited resource pool (CPs).  But, in typical GW fashion, the pool has grown too large, some strats are far too effective and/or cheap so they are used at every opportunity, so they don't feel like a decision and/or draining a limited resource pool.  IIRC a strat was supposed to represent ~20 points of effectiveness.  But take the AdMech Ranger MW strat that (on good dice rolls) could delete mortarion - that's worth 400+.  We just went from video games to One Punch Man Anime.

 

I like the missions.  Some really need tweaking (Crusade retrieval is a free win for the attacker), but regardless you're always playing a mission, even if it's just 'kill more'.  The varying missions add flavor and force interaction, so we don't go back to the 2nd & 7th editions of static gunlines just sitting around waiting for your opponent to move.  The objectives and secondaries are also there to force interaction, and reward good decision making.  That's why I really dislike DA right now, as they are really effective at playing the "I'll just sit here and win" game.  Secondaries like Priority Targets should be capped at 8 for holding your home objective, 12 if the objective is just outside your DZ and 15 for the centerline objectives.  No 2-3 freebie 15 point secondaries for doing nothing.

[Schlitzaf]

Combat Drugs:

Had a few options that you assigned on game start no repeats (8th and 5th very similar in this regard) or it was possessed rng style.

 

Fleet:

Fleet still exists it just called Advance & Charge

 

USR were actually used (handed out to units) basically boiled down to:

FNP

Furious Charge

Relentless

Deep Strikes

Move Threw Cover

Eternal Warrior

Fearless

Stubborn

Stealth

 

You also had common USR but not given to units thay didn’t have them innately:

Infilitrating

Scout

NightVision

Fleet

CounterAttack

Posion

True Grit

 

Then had 101 weapon cool abilities. The ones genuinelt used were

Specialist

Rending

MastCraft

Unwieldy

TwinLinked

 

And more added in 6th/became keywords words (Shred and Concussive)

 

Alot of those basically still exist in the modern era on datasheets.

Exceptions are:

NightVision

All “First Round of Combat/Extra Close” Buffs.*

 

NightVision is eh. Its gone but 90% of the time superflous (ignires covee arguebabky replaced it).

 

*These rules are now either army wide ones (BA Chapter Tactics) or functionally added into ujit datasheet or no longer needed (True Grit).

[sarabando]

I've not played 40k since 40k in 40 minutes came out in 5th edition. I hear you all talking about strategems etc and it's honestly scaring me off playing.

 

I've spent alot of time playing bolt action which is heavily based on 40k 3rd ed and it's so much simpler to play.

 

There's a reason I just build and paint XD

[Lord Marshal]

Thats a very good point actually, did GW ever actually sell packs of datasheets? It feels like a no brainer and im sure they did but i might just be confusing with AoS

 

They do in AoS and they did for Apocalypse. 

[phandaal]

 

 

I think the mission style is what started the death of 40k as anything resembling an "elegant game".

 

The Nova/ITC inspired missions were a big departure from the style that GW employed in 8th, 7th and prior. Just playing a matched play mission requires a vast amount of admin, book keeping, planning, etc.

You could keep track of missions and scoring prior to this with simple memory and nothing more.

 

Also, the constant adjustment, errata, FAQs, etc that often times change the way a codex functions entirely, are detrimental to the elegance of even starting to play a game.

Billing Matched Play as the premiere way to play 40k was a mistake. People do want a common ruleset, but any time a comparison is done between "competitive" and "casual" modes of play in games, people pick the casual mode.

 

 

Matched Play is not the problem, really. It's the most robust way to play for pick up games and has been for a long time. Most people simply prefer playing with rules that provide the most fair baseline. The real problem was mixing tournament play into basic matched play.

 

 

That's the thing, Matched Play is not the most fair baseline. Some armies are just better at scoring Primary + Secondary. Some Secondaries are much better than others (i.e. Herd the Prey, Stubborn Defiance).

 

The most fair baseline is a single set of objectives with battleforged army rules.

[Panzer]

 

 

 

I think the mission style is what started the death of 40k as anything resembling an "elegant game".

 

The Nova/ITC inspired missions were a big departure from the style that GW employed in 8th, 7th and prior. Just playing a matched play mission requires a vast amount of admin, book keeping, planning, etc.

You could keep track of missions and scoring prior to this with simple memory and nothing more.

 

Also, the constant adjustment, errata, FAQs, etc that often times change the way a codex functions entirely, are detrimental to the elegance of even starting to play a game.

Billing Matched Play as the premiere way to play 40k was a mistake. People do want a common ruleset, but any time a comparison is done between "competitive" and "casual" modes of play in games, people pick the casual mode.

 

 

Matched Play is not the problem, really. It's the most robust way to play for pick up games and has been for a long time. Most people simply prefer playing with rules that provide the most fair baseline. The real problem was mixing tournament play into basic matched play.

 

 

That's the thing, Matched Play is not the most fair baseline. Some armies are just better at scoring Primary + Secondary. Some Secondaries are much better than others (i.e. Herd the Prey, Stubborn Defiance).

 

The most fair baseline is a single set of objectives with battleforged army rules.

 

 

You're confusing most fair with 100% fair. Narrative and Open are much less fair. Out of the three ways to play it is undeniably the most fair period, so that's become the standard way to play.

[Valkyrion]

Stratagems wouldn't be so bad if the system was better.

A predator using a stratagem to fire its smoke launchers is rubbish, but an army wide strategy card that is one use only and applies to every vehicle in your army would be fantastic.

 

The 2nd ed strategy card system was fine even if some cards had their flaws (Virus Outbreak!).

 

My Stratagem proposal for the next edition would be this;

Take the stratagems out of the codexes.

Put them in the card decks (just as now). - This feels like a £10 stealth tax or whatever, but by taking strats out of a codex you are removing their use as a mandatory aspect of the game.

Strats are chosen before the game - 3 for combat patrol, 6 for incursion, 9 for strike force, 12 for onslaught

Each strat is one use only.

No strats for bonus warlord traits or relics.

 

They wouldn't be the same stratagems as they are now. They would be reworked (think Strategic Assets in Apocalypse) - so you might have a strat that allows you to reroll armour saves, but it's not exclusive to <FACTION> TERMINATORS, or whatever, you'd just pick one of your units to apply it to. 

 

the beauty of this system is that not only do GW get an extra tenner from each of us that buy the cards, but all 9th edition codexes would remain valid throughout 10th provided said cards were released at the beginning of the edition. Just a FAQ/Errata to say 'ignore all references to Command Points and Stratagems, refer to 10th rule book for details'. 

 

If it wasn't subtle enough or lacked nuance then you could break the strats down into defence, attack and tactical or whatever and make some choices mandatory.

For example; Ultramarines must pick at least one from each section. World Eaters must pick at least 2 from attack and cannot pick any from defence. Alaitoc must pick one tactical for every other choice etc etc

 

 

It might not work, it'd need playtesting. But I'm becoming increasingly certain that GW don't playtest beyond the core rules, because no playtesters would advise that this clusterbomb of rules and the myriad interactions we have now is a good system. 

[phandaal]

 

 

 

 

That's the thing, Matched Play is not the most fair baseline. Some armies are just better at scoring Primary + Secondary. Some Secondaries are much better than others (i.e. Herd the Prey, Stubborn Defiance).

 

The most fair baseline is a single set of objectives with battleforged army rules.

 

 

You're confusing most fair with 100% fair. Narrative and Open are much less fair. Out of the three ways to play it is undeniably the most fair period, so that's become the standard way to play.

 

 

Disagree that Matched Play became the standard because it was the most fair.

 

And no, I am not confusing most fair and 100% fair. No need for mind reading here.

[Blurf]

I thought What killed 7th was the "free" add-ons an armylist might get that left games severely unbalanced from player/faction to player/faction? Such as getting dedicated transports for free for your troops choices or the ability to take squadrons of things like predators instead of 1 per slot? Or the ability to over use soup lists granting a players army the ability to stack core rules of each faction within their armylist as opposed to a primary and secondary forces only affecting themselves?

 

Maybe I just misunderstood everyone else's complaints with 7th.

A lot of things killed 7th. Free add-ons were one of the things that got complained about a lot but USRs stacking on top of each other was a major contributing factor for creating unkillable death stars.

 

No one brought predators. That wasn't a reason, lol.

Edited January 19, 2022 by Blurf

[Blurf]

 

 

 

I think the mission style is what started the death of 40k as anything resembling an "elegant game".

 

The Nova/ITC inspired missions were a big departure from the style that GW employed in 8th, 7th and prior. Just playing a matched play mission requires a vast amount of admin, book keeping, planning, etc.

You could keep track of missions and scoring prior to this with simple memory and nothing more.

 

Also, the constant adjustment, errata, FAQs, etc that often times change the way a codex functions entirely, are detrimental to the elegance of even starting to play a game.

Billing Matched Play as the premiere way to play 40k was a mistake. People do want a common ruleset, but any time a comparison is done between "competitive" and "casual" modes of play in games, people pick the casual mode.

 

 

Matched Play is not the problem, really. It's the most robust way to play for pick up games and has been for a long time. Most people simply prefer playing with rules that provide the most fair baseline. The real problem was mixing tournament play into basic matched play.

 

 

That's the thing, Matched Play is not the most fair baseline. Some armies are just better at scoring Primary + Secondary. Some Secondaries are much better than others (i.e. Herd the Prey, Stubborn Defiance).

 

The most fair baseline is a single set of objectives with battleforged army rules.

 

That doesn't solve the problem with some armies being better at scoring particular objectives than others at all.

 

In fact, you could argue that this makes it much worse. Kill points the objective? Knights win by default. Pure objective capturing? Play fast MSU or lose before the game even starts.

Edited January 19, 2022 by Blurf