Back to 0 Faith ...

[Remain_Indoors]

20 hours ago, Rain said:

The models-first approach really sucks. Contrary to popular goodthink it was not always like this either, which is what makes it even more galling.
 

The 5th ed Dark Eldar codex was full or characters that had no model, and inspired conversions. It included the Voidraven bomber which didn’t get a model for years, if memory serves. I think even the Venom took a little while to get a model, but it still had rules immediately in case people wanted to convert Vypers or whatever.

 

You can thank Chapterhouse for that. 
 

As far as I can see, the rules decisions are a result of the modern trend of chasing competitive players and as I’ve said before it’s hurting the game. I don’t care if the Lion was far better than anything I could field, he’s the Lion. But because of catering to the tournament scene, we can’t have characterful unbalance.

 

Instead of the waste of paper that is Combat Patrol, the should rework it to a competitive play mode. Have set lists for tournament goers and let the game be the fun, casual, narrative game it was intended to be.

[gideon stargreave]

8 minutes ago, Remain_Indoors said:

don’t care if the Lion was far better than anything I could field, he’s the Lion. But because of catering to the tournament scene, we can’t have characterful unbalance.

100% agreed. Yes it can be nice to have test of skill Style even match ups, I think the game shouldn’t be that as default. I’d love to see rulebook scenarios that were made unbalanced as written, eg. Defenders have 1/2 points values but special terrain 

[Remain_Indoors]

15 minutes ago, gideon stargreave said:

100% agreed. Yes it can be nice to have test of skill Style even match ups, I think the game shouldn’t be that as default. I’d love to see rulebook scenarios that were made unbalanced as written, eg. Defenders have 1/2 points values but special terrain 

Like the old 3rd edition Meatgrinder mission. I’ve never told a “war story” about a game of chess, but I’ve got plenty about the time Sauron smashed through my Last Alliance army in MESBG, or the Starship Troopers-esque last stand of my Guard vs respawning Tyranids.

[ThaneOfTas]

9 hours ago, Remain_Indoors said:

 

Instead of the waste of paper that is Combat Patrol, the should rework it to a competitive play mode. Have set lists for tournament goers and let the game be the fun, casual, narrative game it was intended to be.

Yes! take a leaf out of MTG's book and have a limited list of datasheets for each faction that can be used in competitive, those sheets get updated rapidly and should be easier to keep balanced. Everything else basically gets treated like Legends, but maybe updated sightly more often, and is supported with things like thematic mission packs and exemplary battles. and for the sake of the great ing angel, let us go back to being allowed to have datasheets for non existent models. They're willing to do so for Heresy still, its ridiculous to only refuse to for 40k (and AoS i suppose)

[ThePenitentOne]

10 hours ago, Remain_Indoors said:

 

 

Instead of the waste of paper that is Combat Patrol, the should rework it to a competitive play mode. Have set lists for tournament goers and let the game be the fun, casual, narrative game it was intended to be.

 

To be clear, I haven't played Combat Patrol, and it doesn't particular appeal to me, but I do see its value, and I think its great for new players.

 

The tone and attitude in your post is the type of thing that tends to get my ire up- "I don't play it, therefore it's garbage." 

 

I don't necessarily disagree with the underlying premise- a specific tournament edition that allows the main game to be a sandbox could be good for the game. But I don't think we have to destroy anything in order to do that. Whether you like Combat Patrol or not, whether I like Combat Patrol or not- irrelevant. They wrapped up a Combat Patrol League at my store recently, and people had a lot of fun. I'm sure they don't approve of you peeing in their cornflakes just because YOU are unhappy with breakfast.

[Blindhamster]

latest tournament results sort of suggest the game is in a better place than its probably been in many many years in terms of pure balance.

Dark Angels were absolutely top dog for marines in 9th, maybe they've been a bit heavy handed with this as a result- hopefully points get adjusted on release and it's a non-issue. People keep getting upset by the deathwing knights lower damage than the old damage 3, honestly I thought damage 3 on 4 wound models with -1 damage was obnoxious. Now they've implied their focus is resilience rather than damage - that works for me, all they need to do is lower the points to something a bit more reasonable to fit that and they'll be fine. The Inner Circle companions look fun, more fragile than was maybe desirable, but they have pretty cool rules and they don't suck (again assuming they end up a little cheaper than leaks have them).

[Blindhamster]

also yeah, combat patrol is actually pretty nice for getting newer people to give the game a try, its basically "pick up and play", its also potentially fun for just a bit of a mess around with friends.

[phandaal]

For me, the annoyance comes from watching GW randomly delete things that gave Dark Angels a lot of character. I could care less about the bad rules, because that just feels par for the course. Just don't like watching people treat something I like so disrespectfully.

 

From a rules standpoint though, the Codex is a significant step down from the Index. That is in totality, not just a reaction to DW Knights swinging nerf bats. So basically, people are paying for the privilege of having worse rules with fewer options than they had even at the start of this edition. If I hadn't already written this edition off and was trying to play my Dark Angels, it would certainly bother me, and I don't think anyone is unreasonable for feeling that way.

 

9 minutes ago, Blindhamster said:

also yeah, combat patrol is actually pretty nice for getting newer people to give the game a try, its basically "pick up and play", its also potentially fun for just a bit of a mess around with friends.

 

Combat patrols are definitely a move in the right direction. Something that gets people into the game without blasting them with 40k's firehose of rules. Would be nice to see armies getting access to more than just the box patrol lists.

[Helias_Tancred]

Agreed, bad rules come and go for a faction ... but the more serious violations were those that fundamentally changed the organization and existence of Dark Angel units. Almost like they require lore redactions?

[Blindhamster]

Appreciate the explanations. I guess for me it’s more different because as a blood angel player I’ve seen death company go from basically veteran options (2nd Ed) to random generated dudes where you had to forgo good models in other units, to a bunch of dudes with no options but having rending to dudes with options for bolters and the same time as melee weapons (like space wolves) to bonkers options to basically intercessors over the years, I guess “my guys” so to speak, never had the same consistency with stuff like that so the idea of losing certain things matters less to me. Similarly, I remember having jump pack command squads when nobody else could, so you guys losing terminator ones feels like another of those things.

 

i guess my vibe for the entire thing is like the “first time” meme. 
 

Rules change and it can be frustrating. It seems like all factions are actually taking minor nerfs this round as they get codex though, which is maybe a good thing overall. 
 

Is the codex really a significant step down? Excluding the points issues which I do think will get adjusted. You have more detachments to play around with now, a new potentially interesting unit and actually losses of units seemed fairly limited?

 

I do believe eventually a terminator version of company heroes, bike version of company heroes and probably a jump version too will happen, most likely 

[MegaVolt87]

10th ed combat patrol is a downgrade, 9th ed and 8th ed open combat patrol rules are better. Bad enough my units are box locked for options in equipment. You can police combat patrol with your own training wheels, we don't need GW for that. Can't comment on crusade but I assume the older content from past editions will still work and probably be better. Locked in combat patrol in 10th looks like a comp format to me vs narrative/ open play oriented of past editions. 

[Helias_Tancred]

I'm very curious about the new Crusade Campaign book.... 

 

[Evil Eye]

It's funny, Combat Patrol is one of the only things from 10th I actually have some interest in, if only because the fixed rosters somewhat ameliorates the lack of any kind of granular points. It sucks for trying to get more immersive/your dudes experiences out of the game but realistically you aren't getting that out of 10th anyway, and at least there's some semblance of balance.

 

For the most part though I've lost all interest in 40K's modern ruleset. The aggressive no-model-no-rules policy, excessive abstraction and simplification, horrendously videogamey design and the constant reworking of points values leaving armies illegal and books partially invalid has made me realize GW has completely lost sight of what made their rules appealing to begin with. 

 

What gets me the most is that a lot of the problems GW have created were solved decades ago and never needed to exist in the first place. Case in point, the rule of 3, which exists to stop people spamming the same units, is just a mushier version of the FOC. Likewise, every single unit having ostensibly bespoke weapons (many of which did the same thing anyway) seems unnecessarily convoluted compared to just having a common armoury in each Codex (especially as many Codices have shared weapons). Similar story with USRs. And as for removing points for wargear, I have to wonder what the design team was smoking and where I can get some.

 

The real kicker with the no-model-no-rules nonsense is that it's completely outlived its usefulness and is arguably causing GW more harm than help. GW seems to have it in their heads that if they make the Hive Tyrant able to take weapons not included in the kit (devourers for instance) that they'll somehow lose money by people possibly buying parts/STL files from other companies to give their Tyrants said weapon, ignoring the fact that the person who bought the alternative guns still bought a Hive Tyrant to put them on. Given how accessible alternative models are now compared to, say, 5th edition, especially with the rise of home 3D printing, it's safe to say that if someone wants a model that GW doesn't make, they're going to be able to get it somehow. And most of the people doing so aren't printing/buying models because GW doesn't make them, they're printing/buying them because they don't want to give GW money thanks to their abysmal treatment of their customers. And with stuff like OPR popping up, it's not just alternative models that people are buying, it's alternative rules! It's GW cutting their nose off to spite their face, in short- GW is so against people buying things other than their product as well, that they've stopped a lot of people buying their product at all.

[The Yncarne]

For those that are upset with GW's actions, I suggest looking at alternatives that let you play with your toy soldiers the way you want. 

[phandaal]

3 hours ago, Evil Eye said:

And with stuff like OPR popping up, it's not just alternative models that people are buying, it's alternative rules!

 

This is what a lot of people in my area are doing.

 

I do not doubt the number of 40k players in the area is still significantly higher than any group using other sci-fi rulesets, but it does feel like there is momentum behind alternative ways to put our models on the tabletop.

[Brother Christopher]

1 hour ago, The Yncarne said:

For those that are upset with GW's actions, I suggest looking at alternatives that let you play with your toy soldiers the way you want. 

 

That's a good piece of advice; however, the solution is to a problem that really shouldn't exist in the first place. While still probably enjoyable, rules for 40k are not improving due to the broken and outdated philosophy behind them. Over the years they become more and more cumbersome because of GW's business model and/or incompetence.

 

Contrary to what I'd call 'reason,' the hobby appears to be growing in popularity, largely due to the strength of the 40k brand and the appeal of the models. Surprisingly, GW clearly doesn't want to capitalise on this and give people the full package: 40k-flavoured models and a good game. However, the 40k magnetism is very strong and for many it's almost impossible to break away from it.

 

While others offer better gaming systems, GW pushes for the "Warhammer hobby" (mind, not tabletop wargame hobby or other such generic thing, but the Warhammer hobby) and people would probably like by default to use their expensive miniatures as intended. After all, the pricing is quite premium so we should expect good products and good support. Unfortunately, it isn't so with the rules churn and even the most unacceptable of things: invalidating people's models that require an investment of money and time.

 

Due to GW's channels of communication with the community, many may not be even aware that alternatives exists. And even if they know, it's not that simple to find the right crew to engage in the alternatives. The default mode is the current edition, for better or for worse. Using older rules or alternatives requires a good local community. Alternatives to an unsuccessful edition are always there but GW's customer base doesn't appear to be willing to explore them and opts to stay in this abusive, FOMO-fuelled relationship (parallels between GW's practices and the bleak situation in the current AAA video games market are apparent). I do hope that people eventually come to their senses and make GW suffer financially. I expect that only good things will follow from this.

[The Yncarne]

GW or any business is unlikely to change behavior without financial pressure. I’m having more fun playing OPR with my minis than I have since 5th edition. That’s on GW but I quit relying on them to fix my concerns last edition. 
 

That said, my path isn’t for everyone and I hope GW turns 40k into a joyful game again. I just want to encourage options rather than vent over something I have little control over. If you’re not enjoying a hobby, reconsider where you’re at. 

[alfred_the_great]

This is your bi-weekly reminder that if you’re commenting on an internet thread about how much better it was back in the day, or how to put stl weapons on another model, you are not GW’s core target. 
 

you are deep in the hobby trumpet/funnel and GW will do stuff that may or may not keep you, but not everything is aimed at you…

[phandaal]

3 hours ago, The Yncarne said:

That’s on GW but I quit relying on them to fix my concerns last edition. 

 

This is the best way to look at it, in my opinion. We are basically just venting to each other, (and no one would accuse me of not doing that enough ) but it helps a lot to accept the current state of things and start looking for ways to enjoy what is, ultimately, our hobby.

 

3 hours ago, The Yncarne said:

I’m having more fun playing OPR with my minis than I have since 5th edition.

 

Same. It is wild to actually be excited about showing up to a game without that apprehension about whether it will be fun or not.

[Bryan Blaire]

1 hour ago, alfred_the_great said:

This is your bi-weekly reminder that if you’re commenting on an internet thread about how much better it was back in the day, or how to put stl weapons on another model, you are not GW’s core target. 
 

you are deep in the hobby trumpet/funnel and GW will do stuff that may or may not keep you, but not everything is aimed at you…

Very true - sad that fact actually - once you start doing something that GW actively encouraged as the hobby, you are no longer the target audience for the hobby as GW sees it.

 

Good thing the B&C’s definition of the hobby is more expansive, or 9/10ths of the membership here would probably have to quit using the forums, because GW’s definition of the hobby has become so different to what the board’s allowances as “the Warhammer 40K hobby” are.

Edited January 23 by Bryan Blaire

[Doghouse]

1 hour ago, alfred_the_great said:

This is your bi-weekly reminder that if you’re commenting on an internet thread about how much better it was back in the day, or how to put stl weapons on another model, you are not GW’s core target. 
 

you are deep in the hobby trumpet/funnel and GW will do stuff that may or may not keep you, but not everything is aimed at you…

 

To be fair though, equally not everything is aimed at 'new players' otherwise there would be no need for nostalgia driven items to hype and sell. Regardless of targeted demographics customers are customers and with the promotion of tournament support you are getting a lot more existing and veteran players investing into the hobby or going onto careers within the company. The drop off rate for new hobbyists within the Warhammer umbrella in my extensive personal experience is extremely high. Existing and veteran players are just as much targeted with nostalgia ranges such as most of the specialist games these days as new ones are with the likes of 40k and games like Warcry or Underworlds.

 

Back in the 90s and 2000s maybe you could argue this but the market has grown up since then.

[Redcomet]

On 1/21/2024 at 12:39 PM, MARK0SIAN said:

Specifically in regard to trying to prevent codex creep, I think they’re doing the right thing by being cautious, even producing underpowered codexes. It’s easier to buff an underperforming codex than it is to claw back in a game breakingly overpowered one. We all remember the dumpster fire that was 9th edition with some codexes being so over the top they needed multiple rounds of nerfs to bring them even somewhat in line. 
 

This is not to diminish the frustration of players who get shafted by a weak/nerfed codex. I k ow from experience it’s awful to be in that situation. However, a weak codex is a problem for less people than an overpowered one as lots more people have to be on the receiving end of a codex than have to use one.

 

Hopefull they’ll buff it soon.

They have done so before in the initial batch of codexes and then halfway through the cycle creep will creep back.

[MARK0SIAN]

19 minutes ago, Redcomet said:

They have done so before in the initial batch of codexes and then halfway through the cycle creep will creep back.

Yeah it’s always been a problem but it felt like 9th edition took it to a whole new level. It actually felt like the design philosophy was genuinely for each codex to have something more spectacular than the last one, like the creep was intended rather than just a byproduct of poor rules writing discipline or a designer getting carried away. It also felt like the creep started happening very quickly in 9th, it certainly wasn’t halfway through the cycle.

 

I would rather this more cautious approach (which might result in a few weak codexes that need buffing) over facing the 10th edition equivalent of Dark Eldar kerb stomping everything in sight for months.

[The Praetorian of Inwit]

Don't put faith in GW. Put it somewhere much more useful, like into the Emperor of Mankind!

 

A lot of good points being made in this thread. Ultimately GW will follow the money though. With how successful they are right now they have no reason to change. 

[SvenONE]

Taken right from GWs annual report:

 

Quote

Strategy

We have remained  focused  on  delivering  our  strategic  goal  -  to  make  the  best  fantasy  miniatures  in  the  world,  to  engage and  inspire  our  customers,  and  to  sell  our  products  globally  at  a  profit.  We  intend  to  do  this  forever.  Our  decisions  are focused on long-term success, not short-term gains. 

 

Forever!!!

 

At this point I think we can also say that GW has been prone to writing and releasing dud codices forever. But the truth is they are still a business who is always going to aim efforts and targeting new hobbyists, or enticing hobbyists who have hit their limit with an army to start another one. My DA collection was as complete as it is ever was going to be, especially with obsolete units now! I am tired of painting bone and believe or not I was, and am for that matter, still happy with the now "old" DWK sculpts. No box for me, but plenty of people wanted this one.

 

GW needs to bring in new blood or at least new blood who hasn't been spurned yet by their head scratching rules changes. They have pivoted so many aspects of the way they do business to do that (we the comically staged video of people playing the game on the website).

 

They can't survive forever on hobbyists with complete collections.

Edited January 24 by SvenONE