Hate of 9th: Playing your Way

[Vermintide]

I have resolved to simply play without Codex stratagems, other than the ones you buy as pre-game upgrades for relics etc. A re-roll or auto-pass morale here and there is fine and plenty to spend your CP on.

 

Not only does this significantly reduce the mental load but I feel like it leads to a more "fair" game. I've only tried this in a couple of experimental home games with my own armies but I'm trying to line up a couple of games to try it out against other people who are keen to play a more "simplified" version of the game more reminiscent of older editions. Just pure and simply ignoring stratagems does a decent job of it I think.

 

Sure stratagems are an intentional part of the balance of the game, so you could argue it hits some armies harder than others; but actually I'd estimate the armies it hits hardest are the ones which are currently the most skewed, since stratagems are essentially the most significant source of power this edition. The core rules are pretty good, the datasheets and points (in the updated codexes, at least) are pretty fair; the issue is the crazy stratagems they can pull out.

 

It's not perfect but I think it's the closest thing to just throwing my toys out of the cot and just homebrewing my own version of the game based on 3rd/4th with proxy rules for Primaris.

[ThePenitentOne]

I think that when compromising with your group to get what you need out of the game, there has to be some give and take.

 

For example, if there is a specific night at your game space where 2k matched is the norm, is the space available on other nights for other types of play?

 

If you play 2k Matched play games with your mates 3 weeks out of the month, can you convince them to try a different mode in week 4?

 

That sort of thing.

[Antarius]

I’ve pretty much given up on actually playing 40k, mostly because of rules bloat and mental load (and partly due to difficulties with managing expectations in my group; it’s no fun if you’re basically playing different games).

 

My wish for a 40k game would pretty much be something akin to 3rd or 4th (maaaybe 5th), with some sort of “index army lists”, because those just made the game so much more manageable and, well, “stable” for lack of a better term.

 

That being said, I believe the rules bloat comes more from layering genuinely cool ideas on top of each other than from being beholden to sales. Because honestly, I like most of the ideas (or at least the idea of the ideas) that have made the recent edition(s) unmanageable for me. Stratagems are a cool idea, heck even the dreaded formations was a cool idea in and of itself. The problem is layering these ideas on top of each other and constantly churning out more. At some point it becomes a mess, both when it comes to managing the mental load of actually playing and when it comes to managing balance and the way rules intersect.

Edited January 24, 2022 by Antarius

[mughi3]

I just want to know what would replace strategem bloat with? And avoid MSU Spam (and lesser extent nerfing abilities) also with Factional Purity Bonus. Its a Factional Purity Bonus. The stuff entire community clambered for and wanted as well takijg soup to the back and shooting it. So I guess, I want to know whay do you do you want that GW doesn’t provide?

 

 

 

I posted this some time ago in the homebrew rules section. a few years back  before 9th got released our core regular gaming group at the FLGS decided to go back to playing 5th edition core rules while allowing any compatible codex from 3rd-7th that the player wanted to use to base their army on. 

 

Our groups focus is on playing to the lore of the universe and also have a fun time the way 40K was meant to be played originally-

 

We did import a few rules from other editions to make the game more fun, like sniper rifles always hit on 2+ and wound on 4+ with rending regardless of the firing units BS (from 3rd/4th ed) along with things like snap fire, overwatch and grenade throwing (from 6th/7th). 

It has made the game more fun for everybody and we do not have to worry about GW changing any of the rules. it has the added bonus that all the old codexes are incredibly cheap and easy to find. 

 

The group has only been growing larger as we teach refugees who have only known 8th or 9th ed and have fled from it. i think we are up to about a dozen regular players who come in every week on game night to get some 5th ed games in (when we are not playing another system like infinity or warmachine). 

 

last night we were teaching a new convert to use his blood angels in 5th ed (5th ed codex). got a game in against my dark angels (3.5 mini dex) and another players tau (4th ed dex). 

Edited January 24, 2022 by mughi3

[Redcomet]

It honestly baffles me that people want to go back to the bland 3/4/5e rules. I have never been as bored or uninspired by 40k as back then.

 

But I each their own I guess. I also regularly play Battletech and Pathfinder ttrpg, and both those are more complex than other games.

[mughi3]

Skirmish games like infinity or classic battletech can get away with really complex rules when you only have 4 minis to keep track of. 

 

I also do not see 3rd-7th to be bland at all. in fact quite the opposite. GWs screw ups aside with things like formations. 9th feels more like a CCG to me than a war game where tactical options on the table matter more than what gotcha card you can pop. 

 

The older editions were far more focused on the lore and what your dudes would do in that setting. primaris units for example all feel very samey you just paint them a different color.

 

As an example, i own all the old index astartes books as well as the 3rd ed chapter approved so we can build armies that use units and behave in a certain way that is different an unique.  rather it be a guard armored company that one player always wanted to play, or a storm trooper army another wanted that can be made out of the 3rd ed GK codex as an inquisitorial force. not to mention the funny rules like blood frenzy that effects how khorne berzerkers behave from the 3.5 chaos dex. 

 

Warmachine does a much better job of resource management wargame than GW does on that side of the game mechanics. 

Edited January 24, 2022 by mughi3

[Kenzaburo]

 

 

 

I wanted to hang with my mates, focus on fluff and Grimdarkness and wanted my game to be full of fun, short interactions with the models and my friendly opponents. I had that in 4th and 5th because I could easily gauge what was going on with my army and my opponents at a few glances. My games of 9th I spent buried in the codex, the rulebook, checking my army list and flipping through strat cards. And when I was using my models I kept on wondering if I was forgetting some rule, strat or whatnot. 

 

. 

 

It sounds like you just perfectly described Open play.

 

I think what OP wants to know is "Why didn't you play that?"

 

Why did you opt for Matched when it is clearly out of synch with your needs?

 

(In case you don't know this: In open, the only strats that exist are the ones in the BRB. Only Battleforged armies can use Codex strats, and only Matched play requires armies to be battleforged.)

 

Note: This is an honest question, not a barb, and not a "Play different!" ultimatum. You may have genuinely legitimate reasons for choosing Matched (many people do)- I'm just curious, because you said you wanted to play with "Your Mates" - seems to me that this might imply you have a group where you CAN play other versions of the game.

 

 

First of all: I didn't take it as a barb, it's all good. :)

 

Why not play Open Play? Because we wanted to play Crusade. Crusade, for me, is the greatest achievement of 9th - a cool system with cool and fitting options. But I've said elsewhere: Crusade offers me a narrative layer that is entirely optional. As soon as I were to play in the store again (which I can't because of Covid) I'm bound by what's the standard for pick up games. And that's matched. 

 

What you offer as an option - play the game mode you want - isn't really one. Matched is what's getting played in the broader player base. So what I play is not dictated by me, one player, but the wider group. And since I only get to play with my mates a few times a year, the wider player base is what dictates my overall playing mode. Unless you have a wealth of mates playing 40k at home, which I don't.

 

Tbh, I've never seen Open played, only Narrative and Matched. And even if we're not talking about my games with mates but overall playability of 9th, I'd still say that there's too many rules layers interacting with each other.

[Redcomet]

Skirmish games like infinity or classic battletech can get away with really complex rules when you only have 4 minis to keep track of.

 

I also do not see 3rd-7th to be bland at all. in fact quite the opposite. GWs screw ups aside with things like formations. 9th feels more like a CCG to me than a war game where tactical options on the table matter more than what gotcha card you can pop.

 

The older editions were far more focused on the lore and what your dudes would do in that setting. primaris units for example all feel very samey you just paint them a different color.

 

As an example, i own all the old index astartes books as well as the 3rd ed chapter approved so we can build armies that use units and behave in a certain way that is different an unique. rather it be a guard armored company that one player always wanted to play, or a storm trooper army another wanted that can be made out of the 3rd ed GK codex as an inquisitorial force. not to mention the funny rules like blood frenzy that effects how khorne berzerkers behave from the 3.5 chaos dex.

 

Warmachine does a much better job of resource management wargame than GW does on that side of the game mechanics.

99% of space marine units are the same and only different because of the pain scheme. The lore now is the same as it was then too.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

I do think it's important to point that the 3 ways to play with 40k is kind of a misnomer. For example, my experience with open play has either been team games with players making their own battleforged detachment, new players using two fractions that couldn't ally to experience a bigger game, and matched play armies with open war cards. I've never actually played an open game with whatever models I felt like and haven't even read anyone trying it. I've also played in narrative campaigns that used match played rules. I would argue from the posts on this site that most Crusade players are using their roster to make battle forged armies (and using stratagems). So, it really isn't a situation where there are 3 distinct systems its more of a catchy marketing slogan. 

 

The reason that I'm bringing it up is that both Redcomet and Mughi3 brought up Battletech and that IP has different ways to play. For example, I use the Alpha strike rules which are less involved and meant for bigger games, but the system works just fine if you want a quick lance vs. lance game. You can also choose to play CBT which is more complex (less a wargame and more a simulator lol), and there is nothing stopping you from using that system for big games it just takes a ton of time. In addition, they have another system called destiny which seems to be a cross between the two with role playing elements. 

[ThePenitentOne]

9th feels more like a CCG to me than a war game where tactical options on the table matter more than what gotcha card you can pop.

 

I can see this; I like the current version of the game, but I also like CCGs. 

 

The older editions were far more focused on the lore and what your dudes would do in that setting. primaris units for example all feel very samey you just paint them a different color.

 

This one is a little more complex. First of all, it's very dependent upon which army you're talking about. Yes, Space Marines have had meaningful rules, fluff and range differences in every edition since second. Most other factions are nowhere near as lucky, and making blanket statements about the game based on what's true or false for marines is likely to lead to false conclusions.

 

But it's more than that. Some people are content to let sub-faction differences be pure fluff; others think different unit choices within an army can be enough. Still others (like me) don't think it's fair that in previous editions, SOME armies got a whole suite of bespoke units and rules to express subfaction differences while others did not. If you're willing to say there are no Space Wolves or Blood Angels because a Marine is a Marine, I'll reconsider whether subfaction rules and differentiated strats are necessary for sisters. But if we're always going to have Blood Angels (spoiler alert: we are) that conversation is going to be a long time coming.

 

And finally: some people don't see the connection between the rules and the fluff... But usually I do. And because of that, I say if anything, the new version of the game is MORE in tune with fluff than previous editions. Case and point: Order of Our Martyred Lady and Bloody Rose have been radically different from one another since second ed in the lore. This has only been represented on the table in the two most recent editions. Unit specific strats allow units to do things that we read about in the fluff, but are too powerful in the game to be "Always on" datacard abilities. The Marine that survives an unsurvivable hit from a railgun due to transhuman? Yeah- how many times have you read about that in BL without being able to ever make it happen on the table.

 

In a game, rules are story tools. The fewer you have, the fewer stories can be expressed mechanically. Again, I don't mind restricting the rules available for the tournament/ competitive version of the game. But for Narrative? Not only do I not want to lose any... I want more.

 

 

First of all: I didn't take it as a barb, it's all good.

 

Why not play Open Play? Because we wanted to play Crusade. Crusade, for me, is the greatest achievement of 9th - a cool system with cool and fitting options. But I've said elsewhere: Crusade offers me a narrative layer that is entirely optional. As soon as I were to play in the store again (which I can't because of Covid) I'm bound by what's the standard for pick up games. And that's matched. 

 

What you offer as an option - play the game mode you want - isn't really one. Matched is what's getting played in the broader player base. So what I play is not dictated by me, one player, but the wider group. And since I only get to play with my mates a few times a year, the wider player base is what dictates my overall playing mode. Unless you have a wealth of mates playing 40k at home, which I don't.

 

Tbh, I've never seen Open played, only Narrative and Matched. And even if we're not talking about my games with mates but overall playability of 9th, I'd still say that there's too many rules layers interacting with each other.

Cool to see another player speak highly of Crusade- it's totally my jam, though I do get how it might not work for some folks. Always happy to see another player interested in it though- it makes me feel happy to know that there is a player base for it; forums tend to be populated by competitive players, so it can be hard to see from forums alone that there is a place for Crusade.

 

I figured the reason you were stuck with Matched was related to community and playing space- it is the most common reason cited, and of course, it's totally legit.

 

What I would say though is talk the idea up in the shared space. When you're playing a stranger or a loose game-night acquaintance, ask them if they've ever thought about playing Open or Crusade- especially if you get the idea that they too are not entirely satisfied with the state of the game. Talk to the store manager about an Open or a Crusade night. Open is great for new players- if a store scheduled one Open night per month, they'd be doing wonders to grow a community, rather than simply relying on an existing player base. Is there enough interest from the regular matched crowd to do a once per month Crusade campaign?

 

It doesn't have to replace weekly matched gaming- it can be in addition to it. Store folk aren't going to know that something else is viable until they see it in action.

 

But of course, many players don't have the kind of time or energy it takes to keep pushing hard enough to develop a community. And that's legit too; it amazes me how many people here have super high-stress jobs and kids on top of massive painted 2k + armies. So I do get it. I just wish everyone was able to get the game that was right for them, because I truly believe that the way this edition was written, that would be possible were it not for all the external complications.

 

I do think it's important to point that the 3 ways to play with 40k is kind of a misnomer. For example, my experience with open play has either been team games with players making their own battleforged detachment, new players using two fractions that couldn't ally to experience a bigger game, and matched play armies with open war cards. I've never actually played an open game with whatever models I felt like and haven't even read anyone trying it.

A very good point. But just because people generally aren't doing it, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You can't blame a game or the company that made it for the choices players make. I would also say that game size, while technically not a "different way to play" also helps to customize the feel of the game. I do take your point though- especially in the context of different play modes for other games (ie. Battletech) being more distinctive.

 

I've also played in narrative campaigns that used match played rules. I would argue from the posts on this site that most Crusade players are using their roster to make battle forged armies (and using stratagems).

Totally agree- I'm exclusively a Crusade player, but I always battleforge. I do play with PL as recommended, though I know there are quite a few players who play Crusade with points. There is a lot of game size variation, team play and Kill Team interaction in my Crusade style as well, because it isn't JUST Crusade, it's also campaign-based.

 

So, it really isn't a situation where there are 3 distinct systems its more of a catchy marketing slogan.

I see your point of course- again, as you mention, other multi-modal games may have greater distinction between modes, or even just harder lines between them. But again, you can't blame the game or the company for the choices players make. You can't read the rules of Open Play as written and say that GW was trying to make it so that players of Open would have to use points or battleforge, even if that is what many players do. And again, that's OP's point: if you don't like it, why do you do it. Everyone says it's because that's the only way they can get games... But if that's true, then it seems to me one of two things must ALSO be true: Either the voices of discontent in forums really ARE the minority opinion in real life and others are generally happy with the game as is, or many people playing Matched are doing so because they THINK that's what everyone else wants, when really, larger numbers than they think would be happier with a different game mode or size.

 

The reason that I'm bringing it up is that both Redcomet and Mughi3 brought up Battletech and that IP has different ways to play. For example, I use the Alpha strike rules which are less involved and meant for bigger games, but the system works just fine if you want a quick lance vs. lance game. You can also choose to play CBT which is more complex (less a wargame and more a simulator lol), and there is nothing stopping you from using that system for big games it just takes a ton of time. In addition, they have another system called destiny which seems to be a cross between the two with role playing elements.

This is really cool; I didn't know Battletech did this- my experience of Battletech has mostly been on the Mechwarrior RPG front. I did own two of the plastic mechs once, but they were the only two I could find that I liked, and there didn't seem to be a lot of other stuff to go with them- truth be told, I'm not even sure the plastics were intended as gaming pieces; anytime I've seen people playing, they've always used metals, which I didn't find particularly detailed or compelling.

 

But based on what you've told me here, I kind of equate this mode of play with GW's campaign cycles or seasons. These aren't regarded as a separate play mode either- similar to game size- but there is no doubt that games played in these campaign settings certainly can feel very different from more generalized games.

 

Again, people probably do combine the rules they like from multiple settings in the context of 2k Matched. But that doesn't mean that restricting campaign content specifically to battles fought by campaign factions in the geographical and temporal boundaries of the campaign isn't 1) a viable option or 2) the way GW intended the content to be used.

 

People with a preference of the old over the new tend to wax nostalgic about the effort they put in as players back in the day to do things like invent their own fluff or convert models or build terrain. They sometimes say that the new version of the game takes this away from players, or de-emphasizes this type of activity.

 

Yet they seem to want ready made communities that automatically play a particular version of the game. It just seems a bit counter intuitive to me that a player might go on for pages about how they loved writing a chapter history, converting special characters, and yet they are totally unwilling to put a little effort into self advocacy and bring back the kind of thinking that facilitated kit-bashing in the first place and experiment a little. And again, that's not you and your group specifically- it's a response to the Zeitgeist of "I don't like 9th because strats."

Edited January 24, 2022 by ThePenitentOne

[sibomots]

[ ... ]  now the clubs just full of neckbeards with bad BO and potentially underage girlfriends... 

 

 

Too funny.  Made my day.  Thanks....

 

How many "games" have I been involved with where I spend years trying to build a "kit" (aka, army, etc..) and never played the game?  None,  until WH40k.

I had it planned -- make TT+ paint ready models, but the pandemic..  (Back to box-collecting)

 

Still, the rules were already daunting for the new player.   For 9E,  I'm following the thread trying to make sense out of it.  I'm not encouraged by the discourse. 

 

I am just hoping by the time I do finish my faction that the rules have settled to something, my hopes are pinned on 11th edition. 

Edited January 25, 2022 by sibo

[mughi3]

 

Skirmish games like infinity or classic battletech can get away with really complex rules when you only have 4 minis to keep track of.

 

I also do not see 3rd-7th to be bland at all. in fact quite the opposite. GWs screw ups aside with things like formations. 9th feels more like a CCG to me than a war game where tactical options on the table matter more than what gotcha card you can pop.

 

The older editions were far more focused on the lore and what your dudes would do in that setting. primaris units for example all feel very samey you just paint them a different color.

 

As an example, i own all the old index astartes books as well as the 3rd ed chapter approved so we can build armies that use units and behave in a certain way that is different an unique. rather it be a guard armored company that one player always wanted to play, or a storm trooper army another wanted that can be made out of the 3rd ed GK codex as an inquisitorial force. not to mention the funny rules like blood frenzy that effects how khorne berzerkers behave from the 3.5 chaos dex.

 

Warmachine does a much better job of resource management wargame than GW does on that side of the game mechanics.

99% of space marine units are the same and only different because of the pain scheme. The lore now is the same as it was then too.

 

 

Except it is not. 

 

the real difference is in how the rule changed the army build and way the army behaves. everybody had the same basic FOC

 

minimum 1 HQ 2 troops with a max 2 HQ/6 troop/3 of everything else. since we allow the use of the most flavorful dexes from editions 3-7 this is what people like to use-

 

white scars (IA 3rd ed)

.unigue FOC + born in the saddle, mounted veterans,outflank/scout, hit&run, power lances

Dark angels (DA mini dex 3.5)

.2 distinct stand alone FOC lists for deathwing/ravenwing+stubborn, intractable, hunt the fallen and special allies restrictions

Iron hands (IA 3rd ed)

.special bionics upgrades, special terminator upgrades, 2 unique special HQ options

Blood angels (5th ed)

.unique force org chart+rage, red thirst(furioius charge+fearless), decent of angels, superchargers

 

Now we cannot leave the chaos side out of this so to the best chaos codex ever made-3.5

iron warriors-

.unique FOC, fearless in fortifications, warsmiths (combinations warlord/techmarine)

Word bearers

.unique FOC, chaplains

Then there are the 4 books of the chaos gods that are filled with special rules and requirements for khorne berserkers, plague marines, rubric marines and noise marines as well as their vehicles. 

 

What these armies get in 9th edition is a pittance to what represents their uniqueness in the previous editions. and even with the old special rules for each army it is far less to keep track of than the bloat that abounds in 9th between warlord traits, relics, and especially stratagems. not to say the general mechanics of a 3 phase game being streched into a 7 phase game. 

 

I can see this; I like the current version of the game, but I also like CCGs. 

 

 

 

Well that is one point of contention, i hate card games, and games that use cards beyond basic stats like warmachine. it is one of the reasons why i dislike star wars legion even though i really wanted to play it. 

 

This one is a little more complex. First of all, it's very dependent upon which army you're talking about. Yes, Space Marines have had meaningful rules, fluff and range differences in every edition since second. Most other factions are nowhere near as lucky, and making blanket statements about the game based on what's true or false for marines is likely to lead to false conclusions.

 

 

 

We all know that for 40K the space marines are the flagship product and GW always focuses the story and attention from that point of view. there were a few gems like the 4th ed eldar codex that allowed all of the craftworlds to be represented in a standard FOC.  by the time of 5th ed however most of the non-space marine special army lists were given over to FW for the other races like orks, eldar, etc... there were a few exceptions to this like the 5th ed necron codex but that was not the normal direction GW was going. 

 

Again, this is why the compatible editions 3-7th work within the framework of 5th. we regularly pit 3rd or 4th ed codexes up against 5th or 7th with no problems at all, and most importantly it is a lot of fun to play. 

Edited January 25, 2022 by mughi3

[Noserenda]

 

Some ungodly mess

 

I guess if you are all having fun its good for you but it just feels like you have hit an even level of powergaming rather than some objective point. I mean you are singing the praises of the basic FOC there and then every example you bring up bar the Iron hands ignores it in some way, its literally the first thing on each list of benefits!

 

I suspect if you actually looked at the 9th ed Marine codexes youd also see there is a lot more differences these days, arguably too many if anything and as mentioned above thats finally being shared with all the other factions.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

 

        -Snip-

 

I do think it's important to point that the 3 ways to play with 40k is kind of a misnomer. For example, my experience with open play has either been team games with players making their own battleforged detachment, new players using two fractions that couldn't ally to experience a bigger game, and matched play armies with open war cards. I've never actually played an open game with whatever models I felt like and haven't even read anyone trying it.

A very good point. But just because people generally aren't doing it, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You can't blame a game or the company that made it for the choices players make. I would also say that game size, while technically not a "different way to play" also helps to customize the feel of the game. I do take your point though- especially in the context of different play modes for other games (ie. Battletech) being more distinctive.

 

I've also played in narrative campaigns that used match played rules. I would argue from the posts on this site that most Crusade players are using their roster to make battle forged armies (and using stratagems).

Totally agree- I'm exclusively a Crusade player, but I always battleforge. I do play with PL as recommended, though I know there are quite a few players who play Crusade with points. There is a lot of game size variation, team play and Kill Team interaction in my Crusade style as well, because it isn't JUST Crusade, it's also campaign-based.

 

So, it really isn't a situation where there are 3 distinct systems its more of a catchy marketing slogan.

I see your point of course- again, as you mention, other multi-modal games may have greater distinction between modes, or even just harder lines between them. But again, you can't blame the game or the company for the choices players make. You can't read the rules of Open Play as written and say that GW was trying to make it so that players of Open would have to use points or battleforge, even if that is what many players do. And again, that's OP's point: if you don't like it, why do you do it. Everyone says it's because that's the only way they can get games... But if that's true, then it seems to me one of two things must ALSO be true: Either the voices of discontent in forums really ARE the minority opinion in real life and others are generally happy with the game as is, or many people playing Matched are doing so because they THINK that's what everyone else wants, when really, larger numbers than they think would be happier with a different game mode or size.

 

The reason that I'm bringing it up is that both Redcomet and Mughi3 brought up Battletech and that IP has different ways to play. For example, I use the Alpha strike rules which are less involved and meant for bigger games, but the system works just fine if you want a quick lance vs. lance game. You can also choose to play CBT which is more complex (less a wargame and more a simulator lol), and there is nothing stopping you from using that system for big games it just takes a ton of time. In addition, they have another system called destiny which seems to be a cross between the two with role playing elements.

This is really cool; I didn't know Battletech did this- my experience of Battletech has mostly been on the Mechwarrior RPG front. I did own two of the plastic mechs once, but they were the only two I could find that I liked, and there didn't seem to be a lot of other stuff to go with them- truth be told, I'm not even sure the plastics were intended as gaming pieces; anytime I've seen people playing, they've always used metals, which I didn't find particularly detailed or compelling.

 

But based on what you've told me here, I kind of equate this mode of play with GW's campaign cycles or seasons. These aren't regarded as a separate play mode either- similar to game size- but there is no doubt that games played in these campaign settings certainly can feel very different from more generalized games.

 

Again, people probably do combine the rules they like from multiple settings in the context of 2k Matched. But that doesn't mean that restricting campaign content specifically to battles fought by campaign factions in the geographical and temporal boundaries of the campaign isn't 1) a viable option or 2) the way GW intended the content to be used.

 

People with a preference of the old over the new tend to wax nostalgic about the effort they put in as players back in the day to do things like invent their own fluff or convert models or build terrain. They sometimes say that the new version of the game takes this away from players, or de-emphasizes this type of activity.

 

Yet they seem to want ready made communities that automatically play a particular version of the game. It just seems a bit counter intuitive to me that a player might go on for pages about how they loved writing a chapter history, converting special characters, and yet they are totally unwilling to put a little effort into self advocacy and bring back the kind of thinking that facilitated kit-bashing in the first place and experiment a little. And again, that's not you and your group specifically- it's a response to the Zeitgeist of "I don't like 9th because strats."

 

 

I would argue if players were not interested in a system, you can blame the company it's just like when a video game fails because people aren't interested. Open doesn't feel like a system GW supports, it's more of "I guess you can try this". Narrative feels the most supported it's ever been with Crusade, and Matched is obviously GWs focus. Which is why if there is a 3rd play option its more of a blend of those two systems than open. I think free points for open that don't factor in strats and warlord traits would probably go a long way towards people giving it try.

 

On the battletech front the different rulesets aren't like seasons. They're completely different systems alpha strike feels like a cross between Necromunda & Warcry and has a ton of optional rules. Whereas Classic Battle Tech feels like a simulation facing matters (you roll on tables when you hit mechs), there is a fair amount of resource management (heat/ammo), and you have rules for building your own mech. I haven't played destiny yet but from the description it has some rules for if you don't have a table top to play on. On the model front Catalyst games has done a couple of kickstarters, and the pricing is pretty reasonable for what you get (and their kits do come with alpha strike cards for each mech).     

[MARK0SIAN]

Open play was such a weird addition when it was introduced for 40K. For a start, it’s not like it went down particularly well when they premiered it in AoS, it wasn’t really a system that anyone was asking for in 40K.

 

Plus open play doesn’t really need to be codified as a way to play. If you could find an opponent to agree you could always just put down whatever models you liked in whatever quantity and ignore any other rules you don’t like.

 

I think at this point they’d be better jettisoning open play as a way to play and going for a system which keeps narrative/crusade and matched play but gives a slimmed down version version of matched play for those who want it simpler to replace open play. Maybe using the open war cards and still conforming to rules on army composition, points etc but strips out some of the additional complexity like secondaries, stratagems and maybe progressive abilities.

 

I think then you’d have three genuinely different ways to play that would appeal to different crowds. It would mean those who wanted the simpler version wouldn’t have to go through all the wrangling with people before hand and could simply say “I’m looking for a open war game” instead of a matched play game and everyone would know exactly what that entailed.

[Noserenda]

I think open play was initially included as a sop to whoever thought AoS v1 was a good idea and obviously "just play with whatever" is simple enough but they have really iterated on it since then to make it a different style of play, certainly enough to spend a few pages giving ideas/structure for it, these days its arguably a better fit for the more lopsided scenarios initially pitched as narrative play in 8th for example.

[mughi3]

I guess if you are all having fun its good for you but it just feels like you have hit an even level of powergaming rather than some objective point. I mean you are singing the praises of the basic FOC there and then every example you bring up bar the Iron hands ignores it in some way, its literally the first thing on each list of benefits!

 

 

 

You miss the point-the alt forc org charts allow you to play the army in accordance to the lore and still be a viable army to play in the fact it still has an equal chance to win within the restrictions given in the codexes. 

 

for example, with the entire point to make the armies feel like they do in lore and translate it onto the table. using the FOC that is restricting the white scar list to have all mounted mobile armies while losing access to dev squads and dreads doesn't make them better or worse it makes them different in their combat style.   while other bike themed armies also exist in the  game the WS have a focus on mobile CC themed bike armies compared to the ravenwing that is a mobile shooting based bike army. 

 

I suspect if you actually looked at the 9th ed Marine codexes youd also see there is a lot more differences these days, arguably too many if anything and as mentioned above thats finally being shared with all the other factions.

 

 

 

 

I suspect i have had more experience with 9th edition than many of the posters on this forum, as our FLGS was only shut down for 3 months in 2020 and we went back to normal gaming and have been doing so ever since. having many players who have played 9th since it dropped i have had plenty of experience with seeing actual gameplay and hearing about all the rules and updates for over the last year and a half. 

 

If anything my opinion of the edition has only gotten worse and it is re-enforced by the fact many of the 9th ed players are jumping ship and trying out older editions or just flat out switching to other systems like FOW, infinity, battletech warmachine etc... that have nothing to do with GW. 

Edited January 25, 2022 by mughi3

[Evil Eye]

Plus open play doesn’t really need to be codified as a way to play. If you could find an opponent to agree you could always just put down whatever models you liked in whatever quantity and ignore any other rules you don’t like.

You'd think so, but a lot of players nowadays seem to be utterly incapable of playing any way not specifically outlined in a book, to the point that even "just play with whatever you have" now needs to be spelled out explicitly.

[ThePenitentOne]

 

 

 

I would argue if players were not interested in a system, you can blame the company

 

 

 

And I would too.

 

But that's not really what this thread, or a lot of people in it are talking about.

 

What we're talking about is "I hate this GAME because of rules that exist ONLY IN ONE OF THE WAYS IT CAN BE PLAYED, yet the whole GAME sucks because I either CAN'T or WON'T play the other modes where the rules I specifically hate do not exist"

 

The video game comparrison, if you insist on making one would be hating WoW because of bad experiences on PVP servers when you have never tried an RP server. And you might have just as many legit IRL reasons not to play on the RP server: I like raiding with IRL friends on team speak who only play PVP., or whatever... And that wouldn't be WoW's fault either. 

[Schlitzaf]

Just really reemphasis here:

Is folks saying “This edition is garbage for x/y/z reasons” and they either insist on playing it anyways while avenues exist to remove x/y/z or for “rules” they want back there is other systems support (ie Horus Heresy) what they want.

 

There is a minor desire to know what folks rather have instead or solves issues ostenibly the reason for these things. Stratagems nominally intended to disincentive MSU (success or not beside the point). Another is opening “weird armies”. For example: Past editions if you wanted MonoDeathwing you needed Belial. Now its just Vangaurd Detachment. Meaning to remove the onus of requiring “x” for “y” style armies.

 

The main question: If the basic bedrock of rhe system ostensiby terrible why play it? Or why insist on playing the mode is all the things you hate about it.

[Cpt_Reaper]

I have a question for those that hate 9th.

 

What have you done to fix it? Have you emailed GW at all? Because that is literally the only acceptable answer. If you don't like an aspect of the game, email GW. Let them know. If you:

• won't email them because big bad GW won't change
• did once, got no reply and so "knows" it won't happen
• "voted with your wallet" and changed games

Sorry but you did nothing to fix the game. I email GW every time there is an FAQ update about adding in a Malcador Command Tank and making the entire Malcador line actually worth taking. I have yet to get a reply, but I'll still do it every time because the IA: Compendium needs to be looked at.

 

I am not sorry if this sounds hostile. I have been dealing with a lot and I've had it with all the negativity towards 9th because I see the same arguments made yet nothing actually done by the detractors. EMAIL GAMES WORKSHOP. DO IT AGAIN. KEEP EMAILING THEM.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

 

 

 

 

I would argue if players were not interested in a system, you can blame the company

 

 

 

And I would too.

 

But that's not really what this thread, or a lot of people in it are talking about.

 

What we're talking about is "I hate this GAME because of rules that exist ONLY IN ONE OF THE WAYS IT CAN BE PLAYED, yet the whole GAME sucks because I either CAN'T or WON'T play the other modes where the rules I specifically hate do not exist"

 

The video game comparrison, if you insist on making one would be hating WoW because of bad experiences on PVP servers when you have never tried an RP server. And you might have just as many legit IRL reasons not to play on the RP server: I like raiding with IRL friends on team speak who only play PVP., or whatever... And that wouldn't be WoW's fault either. 

 

 

Right but if the options are seen as less desirable than the mode they dislike than what option do they have? I don't hate 9th, I want it to become a lot faster and a lot less "Gotcha" combo based but I wouldn't touch "open". It doesn't have detachments or really any structure, a fair number of units rely on stratagems for abilities they just used to have, and most (I'm pretty sure all) of the fraction rules rely on detachments. 

 

This will be my last post on this topic, because I'm more in the camp that I want the camp streamline but will deal with it for my friends. That last bit is probably the most clear answer to the question. 

 

I have a question for those that hate 9th.

 

What have you done to fix it? Have you emailed GW at all? Because that is literally the only acceptable answer. If you don't like an aspect of the game, email GW. Let them know. If you:

• won't email them because big bad GW won't change
• did once, got no reply and so "knows" it won't happen
• "voted with your wallet" and changed games

Sorry but you did nothing to fix the game. I email GW every time there is an FAQ update about adding in a Malcador Command Tank and making the entire Malcador line actually worth taking. I have yet to get a reply, but I'll still do it every time because the IA: Compendium needs to be looked at.

 

I am not sorry if this sounds hostile. I have been dealing with a lot and I've had it with all the negativity towards 9th because I see the same arguments made yet nothing actually done by the detractors. EMAIL GAMES WORKSHOP. DO IT AGAIN. KEEP EMAILING THEM.

 

Can't speak for everyone but I filled out the survey. I definitely brought up other systems during it. 

 

If you're having issues with negativity my suggestion is to try and change habits. I've had a couple stretches where started I doom scrolling and it creeps up on you. For me there was definitely a point where I realized I was looking for the negativity and then would try to self-medicate by distracting myself and things had to be perfect, or it would just start up again. For me I just watched a bunch of painting videos. I would change my youtube link to whatever channel I liked at that moment and just find a playlist. Working out helps too, but for me a lot of it was triggered from being over worked. Hopefully things get better for you soon.

[Cpt_Reaper]

 

Can't speak for everyone but I filled out the survey. I definitely brought up other systems during it. 

 

If you're having issues with negativity my suggestion is to try and change habits. I've had a couple stretches where started I doom scrolling and it creeps up on you. For me there was definitely a point where I realized I was looking for the negativity and then would try to self-medicate by distracting myself and things had to be perfect, or it would just start up again. For me I just watched a bunch of painting videos. I would change my youtube link to whatever channel I liked at that moment and just find a playlist. Working out helps too, but for me a lot of it was triggered from being over worked. Hopefully things get better for you soon.

 

 

I'm not walking away anymore. I am going to combat the negativity because then I feel like I am doing something constructive. If I go and watch a youtube video I'm not contributing to anything, I'm just letting the echo chamber be built.

 

I too filled the survey. I haven't left it at that. GW asked my opinion and I give it to them, and will keep doing so until I get a response or see the change I am after. Here's the email address for those that don't have it - 40kFAQ@gwplc.com

[Noserenda]

I have a question for those that hate 9th.

 

What have you done to fix it? Have you emailed GW at all? Because that is literally the only acceptable answer. If you don't like an aspect of the game, email GW. Let them know. If you:

• won't email them because big bad GW won't change
• did once, got no reply and so "knows" it won't happen
• "voted with your wallet" and changed games

Sorry but you did nothing to fix the game. I email GW every time there is an FAQ update about adding in a Malcador Command Tank and making the entire Malcador line actually worth taking. I have yet to get a reply, but I'll still do it every time because the IA: Compendium needs to be looked at.

 

I am not sorry if this sounds hostile. I have been dealing with a lot and I've had it with all the negativity towards 9th because I see the same arguments made yet nothing actually done by the detractors. EMAIL GAMES WORKSHOP. DO IT AGAIN. KEEP EMAILING THEM.

Oh yes, spamming the same message will totally work, do it enough and the folks reading the emails will just filter you straight into the trash when they realise its "that guy" again. :( 

 

Why not just chat with your regular gaming buddies about making a Malcador command sheet yourself? Its a fairly straightforward ask to just add the Command tank bits and traits to a Malcador and pop it in HQ for hell, round up and call it 50pts? Problem solved.

 

I strongly doubt GW is giving much thought to the Forgeworld book in particular and that stuff is never going to be particularly optimal anyway.

 

I am not sorry if this sounds hostile. I have been dealing with a lot and I've had it with all the negativity towards 9th because I see the same arguments made yet nothing actually done by the detractors. FIX THE LOW HANGING FRUIT. SEE HOW IT GOES. MAKE YOUR OWN FUN ;) 

[Cpt_Reaper]

 

Oh yes, spamming the same message will totally work, do it enough and the folks reading the emails will just filter you straight into the trash when they realise its "that guy" again.  

 

Why not just chat with your regular gaming buddies about making a Malcador command sheet yourself? Its a fairly straightforward ask to just add the Command tank bits and traits to a Malcador and pop it in HQ for hell, round up and call it 50pts? Problem solved.

 

I strongly doubt GW is giving much thought to the Forgeworld book in particular and that stuff is never going to be particularly optimal anyway.

 

I am not sorry if this sounds hostile. I have been dealing with a lot and I've had it with all the negativity towards 9th because I see the same arguments made yet nothing actually done by the detractors. FIX THE LOW HANGING FRUIT. SEE HOW IT GOES. MAKE YOUR OWN FUN  

 

 

Or I can actually do something constructive? Making a homebrew datasheet doesn't do anything at all. I could only use it in pre-arranged games with certain people. What if I have literally nobody locally that would allow it? What if "Open Play" doesn't exist locally? What then?

 

I have actually made such a datasheet, and sent it to GW every FAQ update. Doesn't even matter if the FAQ for IA:C get's updated. My last email was on 8/12/21 when the warzone octarius FAQ came out. Each email has a very friendly request for some sort of response. I just want to know it's been seen. They don't have to like it, let alone implement it. Telling people they filter out emails from certain people is not helpful and only serves to further negativity.

 

Again, I am being asked to do nothing to fix the faults of the game while constantly seeing "Oh woe, 9th edition is truly awful and everyone should hate it."