Hate of 9th: Playing your Way

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

 

 

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

 

 

If your goal is to rid of negativity, aren't you creating an echo chamber? If you can't express a negative opinion how can you disagree. I have 20 years and thousands of dollars invested in this game, I try to be balanced in my responses because GW makes things I enjoy but I don't have to love this edition. I can completely understand wanting a break from negativity but my opinion matters too, I'm not saying it's more important than yours it isn't but I need to be able state it.  

 

That said I don't value sending emails to GW, none of these questions I've asked them have ever shown up in a FAQ. The last question I asked was about the space wolf HI stratagem and if it worked for successors. I do value the surveys I asked for plastic SoB and Aspect Warriors. I also asked for them to get rid of negative hit stacking. Those things have happened to GWs credit. 

[Cpt_Reaper]

My goal is to get rid of negativity. Not constructive criticism. I do not disagree that 9th edition needs work. I do disagree that older editions are better. I vehemently disagree that emails are worthless. Doing nothing is worthless.

 

Telling people to play another game, try homebrew or go back to older editions aren't constructive.

Coming together, working out what needs to be fixed and then sending that to GW via email to their FAQ department is constructive.

[MegaVolt87]

 

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."

I can guarantee your email is being read, however it is not making it any further to those who could help or change it. Thats because of gatekeepers. IRL I have been a gatekeeper myself and won't elaborate further. I don't think it's exactly healthy either to believe you are making a difference that way either. In the context of 40k, you would definitely be better off using the official survey and bide your time with DIY rules.

[ThePenitentOne]

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

I can't speak too much to this, because I don't have the marine supplements for the chapters you list- I'm not a marine guy. But I can say that Ravenwing and Deathwing still exist despite being achieved by a different mechanism than non-standard FOC.

 

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.

This I can speak to more. You dismiss Warlord Traits, Relics and Strats as Bloat, but if you're talking army uniqueness, it doesn't make sense to do that, because that combination of WL Traits, Relics and Strats IS what gives the faction their uniqueness.

So for example Iron Warriors: if you had Iron warriors, great they had a chapter tactic which everyone got, and your warlord could get the Ironwarrior Warlord trait, and the Ironwarrior equipment. But now, if I've got 3 Iron Warrior Characters in my army, no only can the all have AN Iron Warriors trait- they can all have different Iron Warriors traits and DIFFERENT ones because there are SIX to choose from, not one. And while every Iron warrior shares a chapter tactic, 9th references the special role that Havocs play in an Iron Warriors by giving them a host of dedicated strats to reflect the fluff connection that heavy weapon squads have with a chapter known as siege masters. And while I don't remember the Warpsmith rule you reference from 4th, if it's just "A Tech Marine can be your Warlord" well I got news for you- anyone can do that now, but when an Ironwarrior does it, they get the Iron Warrior chapter tactic, one of six Iron Warrior WL traits and an Iron Warrior Relic to distinguish them from any other Techmarines who might have been chosen as Warlords.

 

If having Chaplains in a Wordbearer army was a buzz for you in 4th, why not take a Dark Apostle as your Warlord, use the Wordbearer specific requisition strat that bumps his prayer abilities, give him one of the six bespoke Wordbearer WL traits and Wordbearer relic? He'll make any fourth ed chaplain look pretty damn generic by comparison, I'll tell ya that for free. Now I'll grant you- the Wordbearer chapter tactic sucks right now, but CSM don't have their 9th dex yet either.

 

It's easy to say that a previous version of the game made armies fluffy for giving them one or two things that were different from other armies if you're planning on dismissing the literally dozens of distinctions this version gives them as bloat.

 

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.

Yeah, but see in 9th the "Flagshipness" of marines isn't as much of an issue as it was in the editions you prefer, because now ALL factions get some of the stuff that marines have ALWAYS had and a few other factions were lucky enough to have had for brief periods during the era you've chosen. Third to seventh eh? Ask ANY sisters player whether they prefer 9th. In your era, no difference between Argent Shroud and Bloody Rose. You talk about how in this era you prefer, that many of the have-not factions were ported to FW- these guys have ALWAYS been less accessible than mainstream GW- their more expensive, you can't by them in stores and their exclusively resin. Who prefers that to walking into a store and buying plastic off the shelf for less money?

 

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.

So the point here is that by cherry picking from 4 editions you can find at least one where non-marine factions didn't get screwed as hard? Pick from the best of the Xenos dexes available during these four editions because that's what you have to do to make it look like they were ever on par with what was available to marines? And even then it doesn't work, because there are still outliers like Sisters. No thanks- I'll just pick the only edition were ALL subfactions were treated with respect.

 

And look, you're free to prefer older versions of the game, as are all the dissenters in the thread. That's fine, there's nothing I can really say about that. What I'm disagreeing with is that a special FOC and a combination of a handful of USRs do more to distinguish factions from each other as full suites of bespoke content that you choose to dismiss because you see it as bloat.

 

And that's even BEFORE we get into the faction uniqueness that is brought to the game by Crusade.

 

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?

First of all, I feel your pain. But I want to push back a little on the "homebrew doesn't do anything" statement. B&C is one of the best places for homebrew- I participated in the Kill Team Inquisition project, and man, the resource that was generated from that was just amazing.

 

Now we have a new version of KT, and I'm in a bind over Genestealer Cult KT rules that don't actually allow you to play a Genestealer Cult from genesis to apotheosis because there's no way to include purestrains (the first generation of each brood cycle) and Brood Brothers (the second generation of every brood cycle). So I'm working on my Primogenitor GSC rules, and when they're done, I'm hoping to upload them so that other people who feel the same way will have a set of rules that solve the problem.

 

As to the second part of the question, I wrote about this earlier in the thread. If you don't have people who will play how you want to play, you have two options- you can do what some people here have chosen to do and play another game until the next acceptable edition roles around. To me, and I suspect to you, this isn't a satisfactory option.

 

The second option is harder. You have to CREATE the group of people who will play the way you want to. You can find them in stores- while you're unhappily playing Matched with them, you might get the vibe that they aren't particularly happy either. The key is that when this happens, you don't just let that dude walk away so that they remain an anonymous aquaintance who shows up at game night every week to unhappily play matched AGAIN. Invite that dude to participate in a weird 40k experiment that isn't on a game night.

 

I collect many small armies. I have friends an family who are interested enough to PLAY but don't have the funds to buy or the attention span to paint. But it's real easy to set up four 25 PL Crusade armies, say "Pick one" and get a game when we're hanging out and we're bored.

 

People teach their significant other to play. They teach their siblings or their kids to play. Community building used to be regarded as just as much a part of the hobby as painting, collecting, converting, playing or damned tournaments.

[mughi3]

 

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  

 

 

 

Yeah, unless you are getting a few hundred thousand of your closest friends to complain about the same exact thing GW will just blow you off. the only thing they really care about is sales. they have investors to answer to, as long as people keep buying their overpriced minis nothing you do will change that. they have done more to hurt their brand over the last year with the treatment of fan content than any email you could send them. eventually new technology will change them because they cannot stop it. 3d printing will eventually make them redundant.

 

 But I can say that Ravenwing and Deathwing still exist despite being achieved by a different mechanism than non-standard FOC.

 

 

 

Not as the stand alone unique army there were-limited to land raiders terminators and venerable dreads, with the benefit of any member of the inner circle leading them as belial was not a requirement. 

 

 

You dismiss Warlord Traits, Relics and Strats as Bloat, but if you're talking army uniqueness, it doesn't make sense to do that, because that combination of WL Traits, Relics and Strats IS what gives the faction their uniqueness

 

 So you have replaced built in rules with rules that only apply if you bring the right McGuffin or until you run out of command points to use enough stratagems. and this is better?

 

please commander yell at me so i can use this melta bomb i have been carrying around. 

 

So for example Iron Warriors: if you had Iron warriors, great they had a chapter tactic which everyone got, and your warlord could get the Ironwarrior Warlord trait, and the Ironwarrior equipment. But now, if I've got 3 Iron Warrior Characters in my army, no only can the all have AN Iron Warriors trait- they can all have different Iron Warriors traits and DIFFERENT ones because there are SIX to choose from, not one. And while every Iron warrior shares a chapter tactic, 9th references the special role that Havocs play in an Iron Warriors by giving them a host of dedicated strats to reflect the fluff connection that heavy weapon squads have with a chapter known as siege masters. And while I don't remember the Warpsmith rule you reference from 4th, if it's just "A Tech Marine can be your Warlord" well I got news for you- anyone can do that now, but when an Ironwarrior does it, they get the Iron Warrior chapter tactic, one of six Iron Warrior WL traits and an Iron Warrior Relic to distinguish them from any other Techmarines who might have been chosen as Warlords.

 

The fact the chaos lord could also be a techmarine was one of the things that made them stand out and be unique, giving that to everybody actually reduces lore based rules. 

 

Again you rely on a host of strats with a resource mechanic to make the army function in some way to the way it used to function automatically with built in rules. 

 

This is un-need bloat and extra steps that make the game worse not better

 

If having Chaplains in a Wordbearer army was a buzz for you in 4th, why not take a Dark Apostle as your Warlord, use the Wordbearer specific requisition strat that bumps his prayer abilities, give him one of the six bespoke Wordbearer WL traits and Wordbearer relic? He'll make any fourth ed chaplain look pretty damn generic by comparison, I'll tell ya that for free. Now I'll grant you- the Wordbearer chapter tactic sucks right now, but CSM don't have their 9th dex yet either.

 

 

Again you take away the WBs uniqueness because they were the only traitor legion that still had chaplains (or dark apostles if that's what you want to call them it is basically the same thing) we are back to built in army wide rules VS strats and resource mechanics to try and do what was done so simply before. 

 

 

 Third to seventh eh? Ask ANY sisters player whether they prefer 9th. In your era, no difference between Argent Shroud and Bloody Rose. You talk about how in this era you prefer, that many of the have-not factions were ported to FW- these guys have ALWAYS been less accessible than mainstream GW- their more expensive, you can't by them in stores and their exclusively resin. Who prefers that to walking into a store and buying plastic off the shelf for less money?

 

Why yes i can answer this because i did have a SOB army in 3rd and 4th ed and i still prefer it over 9th by miles because the codex (3rd) portrayed them the way they would behave in the lore with the proper equipment they would use.  a quick bit of research into the tactics of each order could easily be translated into the army build by the choices available in the book without any needed special strats or traits or relics.

 

 

So the point here is that by cherry picking from 4 editions you can find at least one where non-marine factions didn't get screwed as hard? Pick from the best of the Xenos dexes available during these four editions because that's what you have to do to make it look like they were ever on par with what was available to marines? And even then it doesn't work, because there are still outliers like Sisters. No thanks- I'll just pick the only edition were ALL subfactions were treated with respect.

 

They don't get screwed at all in some cases. GW is legendary for the pendulum swings in rules. where one specific item was a problem, they will fix that and screw up 3 other things at the same time. the reason it works is because 3rd-7th are all based on the same core comparable rule set. i have been playing since 3rd and as we went through the edition changes, we could see the efforts being made to make the game better over the editions (until 6th) some editions just flat out represent the faction truer to the lore than others. mostly in 3rd and 4th but occasionally in 5th, and some like admech did not even enter the game (outside BFG) until 7th. 

 

 

And look, you're free to prefer older versions of the game, as are all the dissenters in the thread. That's fine, there's nothing I can really say about that. What I'm disagreeing with is that a special FOC and a combination of a handful of USRs do more to distinguish factions from each other as full suites of bespoke content that you choose to dismiss because you see it as bloat.

 

When my faction loses all its distinguishing traits because i ran out of enough command points to use the pile of strats i have to rely on it isn't a war game, it isn't even 40K to me.

 

9th is close to being the worst edition of the game i have ever seen, and that is saying something after the debacle that was the 6th ed core rules. 

 

i play 10 different game systems on a rather regular basis so i have the good fortune to see game mechanics at work with the ability to compare them.  what i can tell you about current 40K compared to the older editions- 9th has too much bloat, to many layered rules, too much focus on being a resource mechanic CCG instead of a wargame, too much complexity backfilled into the codexes that destroy the entire point of streamlining the core rules and most importantly as my experience with teaching people to older editions-it is nowhere near as fun to play for non-tournament minded players. you can go on about open play or crusade (get to that in a second) but the reality is everything is matched play all the time unless you specifically plan something different ahead of time with a specific person or group. 

 

 

And that's even BEFORE we get into the faction uniqueness that is brought to the game by Crusade.

 

Yeah, i know all about crusade-it is a hot mess with way too much bookkeeping. for comparison  i play the old campaign rules for kill team from 4th ed. it has a grand total of 2 pages of rules-the percentile wound chart, and the experience progression rules/options.  it is a much better system and just as engrossing as anything you can do in crusade, although granted a smaller scale being kill teams limited to 12 models with light vehicles. 

[Uprising]

What reading this thread taught me: People still play 40k?  I thought most just build and paint models.  

[mughi3]

What reading this thread taught me: People still play 40k?  I thought most just build and paint models.  

Shocking!

 

I'm addicted, i run late night gaming at our FLGS- last week we had 2 games of 5th ed 40K, 2 games of warmachine/hordes, a B5 wars/Star Wars mod game, a couple groups playing D&D, and a regular group of MTG players. 

 

I usually get 2-3 games minimum myself on game night. 

[Lord_Starscream]

9th (8.5 really) is the most popular edition of 40k ever. Full stop.  It may be showing some of its cracks and GW is having a hard time wrangling the rollout but over all 9th is well supported and popular.  I think OP may be getting passionate internet criticism muddled with the raw reality of the games support. 

 

That said 9th could use serious improvement on many fronts.  Rules access and simplification are good areas to focus on first in my opinion. 

 

I can only speak to the local scene I'm in, but 9th killed much of 40k out here. People still buy models, but no one is playing.

[ThePenitentOne]

Not as the stand alone unique army there were-limited to land raiders terminators and venerable dreads, with the benefit of any member of the inner circle leading them as belial was not a requirement.

Again, I don't play marines (except those who are Chambers Militant for the Inquisition- ie. Deathwing and Grey Knights) So my knowledge here is imperfect, but I'll give it a shot:

 

In the old days, you could field the Deathwing, which included only a few specific units; this allowed you to use a non-standard FOC and get a handful of USRs for everyone in the army.

 

OR

 

You could field a Ravenwing army, which again, included a few select units, and it gave you a non-standard FOC and a handful of USRs.

 

OR

 

You could field a green wing army, which did have the option to include both Ravenwing or Deathwing units, but only up to the limits imposed by the standard FOC, and those units, by virtue of NOT being in a Deathwing or Ravenwing army would lose the special collections of USRs that each of them received from those unique structures.

 

Now, you can make a Deathwing detachment; if you make it big enough, it can be your entire army. Being a Deathwing detachment, all models in it will get a unique Deathwing ability; they will ALSO have access to unique Deathwing Relics, WL Traits and Strats.

 

OR

You could take a Ravenwing detachment, which can also be the entire army if you want. All models in it get a Ravenwing rule but the ALSO get unique relics and strats.

 

OR

You can  field a Green Wing detachment, which has the option to include Deathwing or Ravenwing units- if it does, they lose the bespoke ability they would get for being in a detachment of their own, but there is a Chapterwide doctrine that still provides them with additional rules to reflect their background.

 

So far it sounds similar, BUT by virtue of these three builds being detachments, they can be combined in multiple ways, which I would argue is far more fluffy than being required to fight separately. I'm sure there are numerous tales in the lore where multiple wings have fought together.

 

And interestingly enough:

 

 IF a Ravenwing Outrider detachment includes the warlord, it refunds the CP for that detachment and grants Obsec to Ravenwing units. Huh, color me black, but that sounds like a modern version of a non- standard FOC!

IF a Deathwing Vanguard includes the warlord, it refunds CP and grants Obsec to Deathwing units. Huh, colour me white, that too sounds an awful lot like a non-standard FOC.

 

(I mention this because you seemed to REALLY like non-standard FOCs as defining features of certain armies; they haven't gone anywhere, the game just uses different language to express the same concept these days.)

But again, I could be wrong about some of these specific details, as I'm not truly enough of a marine player to know.

 

So you have replaced built in rules with rules that only apply if you bring the right McGuffin or until you run out of command points to use enough stratagems. and this is better?

 

please commander yell at me so i can use this melta bomb i have been carrying around. 

Nobody has "Replaced" anything- you get the army wide chapter tactic, you get a choice of WL Trait, you get a choice of relic. The strats are IN ADDITION to that.

 

As for the meltabomb comment... Sure, I'll concede, I don't particularly like equipment strats, and their implementation is clumsy. What it does do is prevent every damn unit in the army who has it from using it all on the same turn. For some equipment, this is a very good thing, even if the implentation is weird. And of course, for other pieces of equipment it's not a big deal. Either way, I'll give you this- it is wonky, and I'm not entirely a fan either.

 

The fact the chaos lord could also be a techmarine was one of the things that made them stand out and be unique, giving that to everybody actually reduces lore based rules.

Disagree here. I feel like allowing ONLY Iron Warriors to have techmarines as commanders is defining a faction by means of a stereotype. There were always story events which would have made it appropriate for ANY CSM force to be commanded by a techmarine: "One of our vehicles was disabled in a previous battle and we need it, so tech boy, go take a few units as back-up and bring that sucker home." This is ESPECIALLY true in edition that provides such strong support for small narrative battles. In a game were every mission is designed for 1500-2k armies, it makes a bit more sense to restrict every non-IW force from taking Techs as WLs. But this AIN'T that game- particularly for Crusade, 500-1k is the sweet spot, and there are plenty of stories where less common HQ and WL choices really tell a story. Oh, but sorry, that's Iron Warriors only- nobody else has every put a Tech in charge of a sabotage or retrieval mission, cuz you know, 3 dimensional forces are just bloat- we only like two dimensions to our factions, it makes them more special.

 

Again you rely on a host of strats with a resource mechanic to make the army function in some way to the way it used to function automatically with built in rules.

And again, the strats don't REPLACE the unique chapter tactic, the selection of fluffy WL trats and relics- they are IN ADDITION to it.

 

This is un-need bloat and extra steps that make the game worse not better

So here's a question for you: Looking at the Iron Warriors as a whole, how many officers do they have that would be capable of leading a 2k force?

 

Are all of them tech marines, or are some of them just Lords? In the old rules, was there a way to distinguish an Iron Warrior Lord from a Lord of any other legion, other than the Chapter tactic (which he still gets in 9th)? Or did you HAVE to take a techmarine if you wanted to feel special?

 

And if there were multiple Lords, was there any difference between them?

 

Because thanks to my "Bloat", I could create six Techmarine Commanders, who all have the Common IW Chapter Tactic, but additionally have an IW specific WL trait and each of the six are distinctly different than the others. And what's more, I could just as easily give those IW WL traits to Lords that can be distinguished both from other Legions and from each other via the use of these traits.

 

Sounds a little more well rounded and realistic than "You know we're Iron Warriors cuz Techmarine Warlord"

 

It's the difference between character and caricature.

 

And what's more is that it doesn't have to rob story potential from other Legions to exalt itself. Because those other Legions are now equally nuanced and complex.

 

I won't bother quoting the piece where you make these same arguments against other factions than Word Bearers being able to display faith by including a priest-type model, because all of my counter arguments are the same- including the part where you mistakenly say that strats are are a Replacement for Chapter Tactics, WL Traits and Relics rather than things that exist IN ADDITION to them.

 

 

Why yes i can answer this because i did have a SOB army in 3rd and 4th ed and i still prefer it over 9th by miles because the codex (3rd) portrayed them the way they would behave in the lore with the proper equipment they would use.  a quick bit of research into the tactics of each order could easily be translated into the army build by the choices available in the book without any needed special strats or traits or relics.

Um... No.

 

The third ed. dex did one sisters fluff better than the current book- that is representing Sisters in their capacity as the Chamber Militant of the Ordo Hereticus. And it is a better representation of this one build because the rules for Inquisition were better, not because the rules for sisters were better.

 

See, even in the Witch Hunters dex emphasied their role as Chamber Militant, they were also STILL the fighting arm of the Ecclesiarchy. Strange then that your fluffier than 9th dex didn't include a single ecclesiarchy HQ then, isn't it?

 

You say you can reflect Order differences with army composition? Really? So you'd represent the BR propensity for close combat by having lots of their close combat focussed units, right? Well in the 3rd ed dex, that was Repentia and Celestians. Can you please direct me to the fluff that says BR have more Bodyguards and Repentent Sisters than other Orders? No? It seems your identity by unit selection plan isn't quite as good as you thought it was, does it?

 

Hey, question for you: did cannoness commanders, cannoness superiors, and the abbess(es) exist in 3rd ed lore? Really... So how did you represent THOSE on the table? Oh, right, senior management was only for marines in that edition, I forgot.

 

Look, I LOVED the Witch Hunters dex. LOVED it. And I still love the way it portrays the Hereticus, because GW has not gotten the Inquisition right in 9th (yet- they're actually closer than most people think). But it is preposterous on it's face to suggest that it does a better job of representing Sisters than the current dex. I try to be kind and diplomatic, but honestly dude, this assertion is so flawed it undermines your credibility for everything else.

 

They don't get screwed at all in some cases.

What I'm getting at here is that you're picking the BEST dex for each faction from four editions for any of the factions that did get screwed in any of those editions. And you are comparing that scenario to a SINGLE edition, and saying that the single edition sucks because it isn't as good as what you get when you cherry pick the best representation of each faction from 5 different editions. If you had to pick any one of them to take the Pepsi challenge with 9th, you'd have a far higher number of people who felt shafted. Yes, in this ed, Drukhari are OP. Yes, in this ED, factions without a 9th dex perform worse than those with one. But aside from that, the balance and representation for ALL factions is arguably better than it's ever been. 

 

 

When my faction loses all its distinguishing traits because i ran out of enough command points to use the pile of strats i have to rely on it isn't a war game, it isn't even 40K to me.

So you're implying that your army-wide and sub-faction wide unique traits, as well as your bespoke units (if your faction/ subfaction has them) and the unique warlord traits, and the unique relics and any bespoke requisition traits disappear when you run out of CP?

 

Again, it's SOOOO wrong that it undermines the credibility of your other arguments. Strats are IN ADDITION to more faction and subfaction distinguishing features that have ever existed in any version of the game- especially when you take into account ALL factions, not just the ones that help you support your false narrative. Not an opinion- a fact.

 

 

9th is close to being the worst edition of the game i have ever seen, and that is saying something after the debacle that was the 6th ed core rules.

It may be your least favourite based on your subjective preferences, sure- nobody can argue against that. And this is also true of a great many other players too, and nobody can argue against them either. Every one of those opinions is valid.

 

But you cannot argue that objectively any edition ever had as many ways to convey the stories and narrative of 40k better than the current version when you take into account EVERY faction and ALL modes of play, because that is just a factually incorrect statement. 

 

i play 10 different game systems on a rather regular basis so i have the good fortune to see game mechanics at work with the ability to compare them.  what i can tell you about current 40K compared to the older editions- 9th has too much bloat, to many layered rules, too much focus on being a resource mechanic CCG instead of a wargame, too much complexity backfilled into the codexes that destroy the entire point of streamlining the core rules and most importantly as my experience with teaching people to older editions-it is nowhere near as fun to play for non-tournament minded players. you can go on about open play or crusade (get to that in a second) but the reality is everything is matched play all the time unless you specifically plan something different ahead of time with a specific person or group. 

 

 

Yeah, i know all about crusade-it is a hot mess with way too much bookkeeping. for comparison  i play the old campaign rules for kill team from 4th ed. it has a grand total of 2 pages of rules-the percentile wound chart, and the experience progression rules/options.  it is a much better system and just as engrossing as anything you can do in crusade, although granted a smaller scale being kill teams limited to 12 models with light vehicles.

For it's time, I LOVED those KT rules. All of the small version gaming that has come since, whether Crusade, or any of the Kill Team stand-alone/ specialist games owes those rules a great debt of gratitude.

 

I wanted to crack open my old book and look at the rules again before I responded to this piece of your post, but apparently I sold or gave that book away.

 

So I'm not going to tell you those rules are BAD- they aren't. Just like the 3rd Ed Witch Hunters book isn't bad.

 

But to compare those Kill Team rules to Crusade... Wow.

 

Like I said, I don't have a copy of the book anymore, but I remember only one mission- the sentry one. In it, you have your KT vs an NPC type enemy (brute squads + brute boss). Still a cool game, for sure, but not KT vs KT. I think they had other missions too, I just don't remember.

 

But its real failure is that all of the upgrades and all of the equipment was generic; none of it was connected to specific factions. Also, those upgrades tend to be rewarded as a consequence of win/loss.

 

In Crusade, you have generic upgrades and equipment, but you also have bespoke stuff that is faction specific, and helps them feel like their fluff- inappropriate for marines to win torture devices from a KT battle, but TOTALLY legit for Drukhari, right? So a generic list would just not include the item. Which means in the old KT, Drukhari don't get access to the item that fits there fluff, because it wouldn't be suitable for a generic list.

 

And in my opinion, the crowning glory of Crusade is the competing objectives of a given battle. Sure, you're trying to win- that's where the old KT starts and ends. But in Crusade, you're also trying to achieve Agendas in addition to trying to win. And finally in addition to that, you have faction specific long term goals like Sainthood or Repentance for Sisters and Territorial Acquisition for Drukhari. And ALL of these different objectives and different rewards exist in dynamic tension. It creates an incredibly nuanced and detailed story that occurs within a larger narrative context.

 

Instead of "Oh, I won. I get a skill that any other army could get, maybe some equipment that any army could get, and I move on to the next battle." or "I lost. I move on to the next battle."

 

I've got 18 different missions in the BRB for 4 different game sies; I've got 24 missions in one setting, and 48 missions in two other settings, and setting specific rewards and goals for each of them.

 

You've got, what, 6 missions total, for a single size team? And all the rewards are generic, in terms of not just which faction earns them, but the theatre in which they are earned?

 

I'm not saying it isn't a good game- it's fun, sure. But it isn't immersive or fluffy. It's quick, generic and fun.

 

By contrast, Crusade is a system complex and nuanced enough that it could literally generate a BL novel.

 

The former may be what you want, and that's fine. The latter is what I want. Both are "good" depending upon the subjective views of individual players.

 

But it is factually incorrect to say that 4th eds KT minigame is as fluffy as Crusade.

Edited January 27, 2022 by ThePenitentOne

[Schlitzaf]

Just add onto it: Your looking for a reason to hate 9th. And further lets get into the nitty gritty here of the issues here at hand.

 

1) Chaos Marines Didn’t Have Tech Marines or Chaplain Equivalents. The models didn’t exist. They got them in 6th Edition which brought back alot of flavor from prior books including 3.5.

1a) If I see one more reference to 3.5 book without the properlt provided context. In that the book was not just grotoquesly overpowered to the point fundamentally broke the game. And by definitioj in modern era be a soup army people love to complain about. Furthermore the flavor of that book while praised is glossed over the the fact flavor came from forcing you to do something vs enabling. Iron Warriors (whom once again broke the entire dynamic of the game) got forced into a sedentary style list design. Not every Iron Warrior Warband is like that.

2) Your ignoring relics and warlord traits. Which prior to 8th functionally did not exist. Relics were across every army in-pre 6th Era. Were

-4+ IV

-Eternal Warrior Equivalent

-Banner or +1 Attack

-2 Relics vaguely Themed to Choice but not really (generally a punchy and shooty).

 

In 6th and 7th Relics were reintroduced after disapppearing in 4th-5th, but were rarelt seen except for OP Nerf pls. Because they expensive gear on top of expensive items.

 

Before 6th Concept of Warlord Traits did not exist. Warlord as a concept did in 5th. Stuff like Captain or Commanders as they were often known were leaders because theme to point you were actively better not taking captains at all by chaplain + librarian. Because Captain and equivalents sucked.

 

Now let us clear something; Formation Era 7th, and MiniDex Era 3rd. To take “armies” of “Not Dudebro Joe” units like Deathwing you played the game of taking a character to unlock their accessibility as troops like Belial.

[ThePenitentOne]

Thanks for clarifying Schlitzaf- like I said, I wanted to consult the old books to make sure I was getting everything right, but I don't have them anymore. I had thought the special charcters were required to unlock the non-standard FOC's but I wasn't certain enough to assert it- again, cray unfluffy that Belial would have to be on the field in ever fight that was ever fought by the Deathwing- it's good they fixed that in 9th too.

[mughi3]

Thanks for clarifying Schlitzaf- like I said, I wanted to consult the old books to make sure I was getting everything right, but I don't have them anymore. I had thought the special charcters were required to unlock the non-standard FOC's but I wasn't certain enough to assert it- again, cray unfluffy that Belial would have to be on the field in ever fight that was ever fought by the Deathwing- it's good they fixed that in 9th too.

 

 

 

Except he is wrong.  many 5th ed codexes had army unlocks based on special characters. the 3rd and 4th ed codexes did not.  deathwing could be led by any member of the inner circles named characters or generic characters so long as the generics were in terminator armor. 

 

As for chaos specifically you could do generic warlords, sorcerers, demon prices, or greater demons as HQs aside from the special characters that counted as optional HQs like kharne the betrayer or the other special option like the WBs chaplain, and IW warsmith. 

 

he is also wrong about this

 

In that the book was not just grotoquesly overpowered to the point fundamentally broke the game. And by definitioj in modern era be a soup army people love to complain about

 

It absolutely was not, no other codex has ever come close to accurately representing the chaos forces. you could easily build any kind of generic war band you wanted, but to build a list dedicated to one of the chaos gods you were rewarded for playing the fluff. it was what made it the best codex-viable and accurate-

 

 

And this

1) Chaos Marines Didn’t Have Tech Marines or Chaplain Equivalents. The models didn’t exist

 

 See page 41 of the 3.5 chaos dex for the tech marine and siege specialist rules for IW, and page 43 specifically talks about (dark) apostles and chaplains in the WB army list. it should also be noted you didn't have to run the IW list as a defensive type list. one of our players back in the day ran an entire assault force themed list meant to get up in your grill so to speak. 

 

This is the official GW warsmith mini from 3rd

 

 

iu (400×324) (duckduckgo.com)

 

Now that is out of the way let's get to the other items-

 

 

 

Again, I don't play marines (except those who are Chambers Militant for the Inquisition- ie. Deathwing and Grey Knights) So my knowledge here is imperfect, but I'll give it a shot:

 

In the old days, you could field the Deathwing, which included only a few specific units; this allowed you to use a non-standard FOC and get a handful of USRs for everyone in the army.

 

OR

 

You could field a Ravenwing army, which again, included a few select units, and it gave you a non-standard FOC and a handful of USRs.

 

OR

 

You could field a green wing army, which did have the option to include both Ravenwing or Deathwing units, but only up to the limits imposed by the standard FOC, and those units, by virtue of NOT being in a Deathwing or Ravenwing army would lose the special collections of USRs that each of them received from those unique structures.

 

Now, you can make a Deathwing detachment; if you make it big enough, it can be your entire army. Being a Deathwing detachment, all models in it will get a unique Deathwing ability; they will ALSO have access to unique Deathwing Relics, WL Traits and Strats.

 

OR

You could take a Ravenwing detachment, which can also be the entire army if you want. All models in it get a Ravenwing rule but the ALSO get unique relics and strats.

 

OR

You can  field a Green Wing detachment, which has the option to include Deathwing or Ravenwing units- if it does, they lose the bespoke ability they would get for being in a detachment of their own, but there is a Chapterwide doctrine that still provides them with additional rules to reflect their background.

 

So far it sounds similar, BUT by virtue of these three builds being detachments, they can be combined in multiple ways, which I would argue is far more fluffy than being required to fight separately. I'm sure there are numerous tales in the lore where multiple wings have fought together.

 

And interestingly enough:

 

 IF a Ravenwing Outrider detachment includes the warlord, it refunds the CP for that detachment and grants Obsec to Ravenwing units. Huh, color me black, but that sounds like a modern version of a non- standard FOC!

IF a Deathwing Vanguard includes the warlord, it refunds CP and grants Obsec to Deathwing units. Huh, colour me white, that too sounds an awful lot like a non-standard FOC.

 

(I mention this because you seemed to REALLY like non-standard FOCs as defining features of certain armies; they haven't gone anywhere, the game just uses different language to express the same concept these days.)

But again, I could be wrong about some of these specific details, as I'm not truly enough of a marine player to know.

 

 

 

In 5th edition you could do all those things. multiple lists/detachments were allowed so long as each one was allowed to ally together and they meet the required 1 HQ and 2 troops for each army list.  however they do not lose any of their special rules. deathwing units taken in a standard list may only be elites but they are still stubborn, just as ravenwing units retain fearless as well as skilled rider they just lose the specialised army list restrictions. 

 

Nobody has "Replaced" anything- you get the army wide chapter tactic, you get a choice of WL Trait, you get a choice of relic. The strats are IN ADDITION to that.

 

 

 

Try telling that to a GSC army, we actually tried to play 9th without strats a few times and it just doesn't work.  marines may be able to get by with just relics and a specific chapter tactic but as you so loudly complained about the non-marines getting shafted it is no different in 9th. 

 

 Strange then that your fluffier than 9th dex didn't include a single ecclesiarchy HQ then, isn't it?

 

You mean like priests? they are there. 

 

So you'd represent the BR propensity for close combat by having lots of their close combat focussed units, right? Well in the 3rd ed dex, that was Repentia and Celestians. Can you please direct me to the fluff that says BR have more Bodyguards and Repentent Sisters than other Orders? No? It seems your identity by unit selection plan isn't quite as good as you thought it was, does it?

 

So you are incapable of using the dex to choose the correct units to represent this. 

 

It took me about 2 minutes of thumbing through my codex to ID all the units i would need to make a themed list that fits what you want.

 

 

Hey, question for you: did cannoness commanders, cannoness superiors, and the abbess(es) exist in 3rd ed lore? Really... So how did you represent THOSE on the table? Oh, right, senior management was only for marines in that edition, I forgot.

 

 

canoness, palantine, preists, inquisitors, special named characters (not counting the FW ones)

 

 

 But aside from that, the balance and representation for ALL factions is arguably better than it's ever been. 

 

And there is your problem- it depends on what you mean by balance-

9th is all about balance in terms of competitive play, that is not the kind of balance i want. 

 

Balance to me is -does every army have a chance for a good fight they can win, but more importantly fits the lore of the faction. 40K was never meant to be balanced in the way you describe it. every force had flaws and it was up to you to figure out how to use or negate them within the setting of the 40K universe by the actions you take on the table. 

 

The old rules reflect how "my dudes" would behave in this situation. not rather or not they earn their points back. you have gone on a bit about crusade and narrative play but you have moved away from the beer and pretzels-thrown down with your buddies, move some models and throw dice for a general fun time that 40K was meant to be. with the right mind set it is a great game, with a tournament mindset it is a terrible game.  i learned that over a decade ago and swore off that entire scene. so when my buddies berserkers blood frenzy at the worst moment and do something that might not be for the best it is epic and fun. 

 

 

I've got 18 different missions in the BRB for 4 different game sies; I've got 24 missions in one setting, and 48 missions in two other settings, and setting specific rewards and goals for each of them.

 

You've got, what, 6 missions total, for a single size team? And all the rewards are generic, in terms of not just which faction earns them, but the theatre in which they are earned?

 

Depends on rather or not we are running an ongoing story campaign that we can make on our own or we are just going for a quick game (usually when we have multiple players usually 4 on multiple kill teams for some quick fun) even so we are not limited to the core missions in the 4th ed BRB. 

 

 

We are going to just have to agree to disagree, i had over a year and a half of experience with 9th, it has mostly died now. there are a few people who occasionally come in and play it but not many.  as i said previously most have switched to other games. and the players who still do 40K in the regular crowd have more fun with the older editions. being able to play the armies they always wanted to play in the way they were without GW screwing them over with the constant stream of rules changes, points changes or updates to chase after. or having to give GW any more money when the old stuff is easy to find at reasonable prices.

 

The entire point of this topic was to "play your way" and we do because there is no GW enforcer breathing down our necks to play it their way. 

Edited January 28, 2022 by mughi3

[ThePenitentOne]

Thanks for further clarification on old rules for DA and Chaos. I do miss my old books sometimes.

 

I too I'm okay on agreeing to disagree- won't wall of text you again.

 

Real quick though: the priests in Witch Hunters were not HQ's. They could not fill FOC slots. It was impossible to take an army led by a priest. (Unfluffy)

 

Sister Juanita Eruita is the cannoness superior of OoOML- that is, the leader of the Order- equivalent of Chapter Master. While not specifically called out for distinguishing senior ranks, the blessings of the faithful abilities provide the tools to creat a sister who is effectively Cannoness + 1, which would create a suitable representation of a Cannoness Preceptor or Cannoness Superior for Orders that don't yet have one. Heroic level Crusade Cannoness achieves the same goal, and can be COMBINED with blessings of the faithful.

 

All of this existed in the Lore at the time of the 3rd ed dex, and none of it could be represented on the table using that dex.

 

And again, I'd like you to show me the list you used to distinguish Bloody Rose from other orders that was so fluffy- because all close combat specialists for SISTERS in the Witch Hunter dex were units that filled specialist roles- there are only two: Repentia and Celestians. And while BR fluff has ALWAYS talked about their propensity for brutal assault, it has never mentioned greater proportions of either unit... So stacking your list with them does give you the fighting style the Order would use, but does so in a way that doesn't match the fluff. The best you could do was equip Cannonesses/ Palatines with Evicerators... And it would be preposterous to argue that a 3rd ed Sisters army with two evicerators on HQ choices was more lore compliant than a modern BR army with all the new tools.

 

As for GSC without strats- Obviously NOT an experiment tried with their 9th ed dex, which has only been available for two weeks, right? Again, the blame there goes to EDITION churn, not to 9th specifically.

 

Last thing I want to do, and then we can let this chain die and agree to disagree:

 

My 25 PL Death Watch crusade includes the last remaining holdouts of a small Watch Fortress - they were decimated by Tyranid attacks in Blood Angel Territory. They are down to a Lone Watchmaster and a five man Proteus Team. Then Inquisitor Lord Kyria Draxus shows up with five veterens of a Torchbearer Crusade and offers them up as a Fortis Team. 

 

12 dudes. 25 PL. The drama that plays out in this team is great- the vets of the Watch Fortress are in heavy mourning for their lost battle brothers, and it just compounds their distrust of the new Primaris. In the first few battles, the Watchmaster refused to extend his aura abilities to them, even in situations where it would have been advantageous- he just didn't trust them. Then in a pivotal battle, Draxus led the Fortis to claim a critical objective, seizing victory from the jaws of defeat. At that point, the Watchmaster and his Proteus team knew that the Fortis hade become true brothers.

 

This transition from arms-length ally to battle brother was celebrated in two ways: the Fortis Sergeant was awarded the Artificer Bolt Cache, which allows him to use special ammunition, just like his Proteus brethren. The unit itself was marked for greatness that day, and their battle honour was Rapid Appraisal, allowing the unit to gain access to special issue ammo via strat at 0 cost, so that they too could finally fight in the manner of their Proteus battle brothers.

 

The Watch Fortress has fully embraced its Fortis recruits, and Kyria Draxus has done her work. Soon, she will rendezvous with her Retinue and depart for the Pariah Nexus, knowing that she has strengthened the Watch Fortress and forged a bond that will ensure that the Primaris are welcome from this day forward- another tool in the ongoing battle against the tyranid menace.  

 

=][= The Emperor Protects =][=

[mughi3]

Real quick though: the priests in Witch Hunters were not HQ's. They could not fill FOC slots. It was impossible to take an army led by a priest. (Unfluffy)

 

You are correct they are an HQ that does nto take an HQ slot but you can have 5 of them with access to the full armory

 

 

And again, I'd like you to show me the list you used to distinguish Bloody Rose from other orders that was so fluffy- because all close combat specialists for SISTERS in the Witch Hunter dex were units that filled specialist roles- there are only two: Repentia and Celestians.

 

HQ

.canoness  wargear as you like W/ celestian retinue

.Saint celestine

Troops-

.X2 SOB squads of preferred size in a transport (i prefer the repressors from FW,  i miss having those minis but i sold them with the entire army)

 

Elites

Alacart- your choice between 

.celestian squad 

,repentia

.arco flagellant (i think they are all men though so that would not be the pure SOB list but still fits the theme)

 

Fast Attack-

. Seraphim squad(s) (up to 3)

 

Heavy support

.3X3 penitent engine squads (depending on points level)

 

Fun stories are always great.  We had a wraithguard in a kill team we used to play with nicknamed derpee (Not his actual name-we name all our KT members) i don't remember what special skills or abilities he earned but i do remember he had taken an arrow to the knee (wound), a grevious chest wound, had been captured, escaped then ended up in a carnivorous jungle so he made for the nearby river jumping into it only to discover it was lava....... poor poor derpee. 

 

[Jings]

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.

 

 

Sounds like an effective strategy. 

 

I'd bet the designers at GW are dorks like us and probably peruse forums like this and others. You'll have a better chance of influencing a change with a thread like this with multiple people having similar complaints than emailing someone with a degree in filtering nerd complaints. 

 

Hell you'd be better off harrassing them on Facebook. 

[Cpt_Reaper]

 

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.

 

 

Sounds like an effective strategy. 

 

I'd bet the designers at GW are dorks like us and probably peruse forums like this and others. You'll have a better chance of influencing a change with a thread like this with multiple people having similar complaints than emailing someone with a degree in filtering nerd complaints. 

 

Hell you'd be better off harrassing them on Facebook. 

 

 

Except their facebook page is run by their social media team, who have said not to contact them in regards to rules or FAQ queries multiple times.

 

Additionally, I will not stop emailing the FAQ team. Because a well worded email that presents the issue and presents a potential fix for said issue is always a good idea. If anyone can show me that another method has more of a chance at affecting change I'd like to see it.

[MARK0SIAN]

 

 

 

 

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.

 

Sounds like an effective strategy.

 

I'd bet the designers at GW are dorks like us and probably peruse forums like this and others. You'll have a better chance of influencing a change with a thread like this with multiple people having similar complaints than emailing someone with a degree in filtering nerd complaints.

 

Hell you'd be better off harrassing them on Facebook.

Except their facebook page is run by their social media team, who have said not to contact them in regards to rules or FAQ queries multiple times.

 

Additionally, I will not stop emailing the FAQ team. Because a well worded email that presents the issue and presents a potential fix for said issue is always a good idea. If anyone can show me that another method has more of a chance at affecting change I'd like to see it.

People are unlikely to be able to offer you an alternative method but equally your proposed method seems just as futile. You say yourself you have emailed on multiple occasions and have yet to see any fix or even an acknowledgment of your input. You professing that emailing them is the best course of action rather than discussing it here seems to fly in the face of your own experience. By your own admission, both have achieved exactly the same result.

[Cpt_Reaper]

My method has one advantage that no other method does - it is going directly to the FAQ team. Whether said team reads it or not, what they do with it is something I have no control over. Discussing the faults and fixes, making homebrew, pestering marketing teams...none of these methods gets the information to the FAQ team therefore emailing is the only method that has the potential to work and therefore is the best method.

 

Now, if someone can show me proof the rules team reads online forums and takes that on board then I will stop emailing and do more on forums. Until that proof is shown, I will carry on.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

For whats its worth Cpt_Reaper I really think if you want to combat negativity you do want to become more active on these forums. At the end of the day there isn't going to be a perfect edition of 40k, people want different things from the game. So, trying to fix everything with rules doesn't make sense. As an example, there are several topics about improving vehicles, and a few of players just want chip damage gone, some want vehicles points drop, and others want new special rules. I doubt whatever GW does to address vehicles is going to make everyone happy.

 

Personally, I'd like to see more topics that are positive. As an example, one of the most popular SoB threads is "today I purged..." and I really think there should be a "today in my Crusade..." in Ames where people talk about their crusades. Talking about the units you added to roster, your last game, cool house rules, or what you hoping to achieve should be a positive discussion. Another example may be a topic about a what your favorite stratagem is with a reminder that this is a discussion about whether you think they fit in the game or not just what's your favorite one. Creating positive topics is a great way to champion your causes.

 

 

  

[MegaVolt87]

My method has one advantage that no other method does - it is going directly to the FAQ team. Whether said team reads it or not, what they do with it is something I have no control over. Discussing the faults and fixes, making homebrew, pestering marketing teams...none of these methods gets the information to the FAQ team therefore emailing is the only method that has the potential to work and therefore is the best method.

 

Now, if someone can show me proof the rules team reads online forums and takes that on board then I will stop emailing and do more on forums. Until that proof is shown, I will carry on.

 

Nope, you aren't making it past the gatekeepers believe me. The official survey's are your best bet. Also because gatekeeping of information is a thing, there is always a few who wake up and go outside the company information line to see if its the same as what they are reading as internal reports on something. Source- former gatekeeper IRL. 

 

 

 

 

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."

I can guarantee your email is being read, however it is not making it any further to those who could help or change it. Thats because of gatekeepers. IRL I have been a gatekeeper myself and won't elaborate further. I don't think it's exactly healthy either to believe you are making a difference that way either. In the context of 40k, you would definitely be better off using the official survey and bide your time with DIY rules.

 

Edited January 31, 2022 by MegaVolt87

[Wulf Vengis]

NOTE: I want to apologize in advance in case this comes of as antagonistic. It is not meant to be. It is however meant to ask the question: do you believe/trust what you're told?

 

My method has one advantage that no other method does - it is going directly to the FAQ team.

Is it though? Are you sure it's going DIRECTLY to the ACTUAL faq team? Can you prove that?

 

We can show proof that at least the surveys are getting through and seen.

Edited January 31, 2022 by Wulf Vengis