Game Stability, Balance, and Health Over Time

[TheTrans]

19 minutes ago, Rogue said:

I really thought it would be more factions than that. Fair enough. Sounds like you had a fun weekend :)

I could be completely wrong, but I'm pretty sure thats it haha. But yeah was a fantastic weekend and peeps are keen for a visit to Armageddon next year!
 

17 minutes ago, The Unseen said:

I thought Tau didn't show up till 4th?

But yeah, not that many factions are actually really "new", as all the CSM and Loyalist specific factions have rules for that era, even if they aren't as focussed. 

Nah, Tau where 3rd also! You'll find the broad bulk of stuff in modern 40k was rattling around in 3rd. 
You say that, but Black Templars, Salamanders, Space Wolves, Blood Angels and Dark Angels all had, if not their own little supplement, at least alternate ways to run their armies. Hell even Deathwatch Existed as a Kill Team you could take as a HQ choice in all Imperial Armies.

Chaos actually had probably the best codex ever released, which ad rules for every founding legion and running full cult armies. I don't think GW has actually released any new characters of any meaningful consequence since the 3.5 book (outside of Huron). 

Third was honestly full to the brim of cool armies, units and themes, its absolutely fantastic! 

*EDIT* I did miss one, which is Knights, but... like... for better or worse, they are a fully fledged faction now... if any one wanted to run them, they'd get 1, as a War Machine detachment... like... they probably always should be haha ;). 

Edited June 26 by TheTrans

[Antarius]

3 hours ago, TheTrans said:

I could be completely wrong, but I'm pretty sure thats it haha. But yeah was a fantastic weekend and peeps are keen for a visit to Armageddon next year!
 

Nah, Tau where 3rd also! You'll find the broad bulk of stuff in modern 40k was rattling around in 3rd. 
You say that, but Black Templars, Salamanders, Space Wolves, Blood Angels and Dark Angels all had, if not their own little supplement, at least alternate ways to run their armies. Hell even Deathwatch Existed as a Kill Team you could take as a HQ choice in all Imperial Armies.

Chaos actually had probably the best codex ever released, which ad rules for every founding legion and running full cult armies. I don't think GW has actually released any new characters of any meaningful consequence since the 3.5 book (outside of Huron). 

Third was honestly full to the brim of cool armies, units and themes, its absolutely fantastic! 

*EDIT* I did miss one, which is Knights, but... like... for better or worse, they are a fully fledged faction now... if any one wanted to run them, they'd get 1, as a War Machine detachment... like... they probably always should be haha ;). 

Third really was a good game! I have a slight preference for 4th, but that's mostly to do with external factors (and the beautiful hardcover rulebook). If I ever go back to actually playing Warhammer 40.000 on a regular basis, I think I'd go for 3rd/4th.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

12 hours ago, TheTrans said:

We didn't actually run into anyone wanting to run.. what.. Skitarri and Votaan (GSC had a semi-official Codex back in 3rd).

If we did have anyone that wanted to do that we probably would have just told them to pick a similar faction and maybe Vehicle Design Rule up the correct vehicles as needed.
 

As above, luckily everyone wanted to use existing stuff, or stuff that would easily slot across (Venomcrawler=Defiler etc). But yeah it wouldn't have been hard to whip something up using an existing army as a base! 

Doesn’t seem too hard to use old codexes and new codexes and convert modern stats/rules if necessary.

 

 

[Chaplain Killmer]

On 6/26/2024 at 10:57 AM, Antarius said:

Third really was a good game! I have a slight preference for 4th, but that's mostly to do with external factors (and the beautiful hardcover rulebook). If I ever go back to actually playing Warhammer 40.000 on a regular basis, I think I'd go for 3rd/4th.

 

Actually I read this frequently and I ask myself why I don't have that good memories about the 3rd edition, but maybe it was just me. The first things that come into my mind as DA player  were

 

Marine Chars sucked - especially coming from 2nd

Terminators were just sad

Marines infantry overall was as far away from the lore as they could be

 

There was almost no customization left in the game apart from maybe a handful of wargear items

 

My most favourite unit in the game were the attack bikes because of the armor 2 which was funny and sad at the same time when the multi melta attack bikes annihilate a unit of Reman Russ tanks from the front without losing a single bike because of the save.

 

I don't want to say the good old things were better (again to me as a marine player). Rules were much less precise, marines were the base line that all other armies were measured on - this the reason the Eldar are still so good because that was such a fundamental flaw that GW can't fix. Fixing issues was in reality not happening. The existence of the DA 3.5 codes was if i remember that correctly because of the initiative of this very board. 

 

 

Ups forgot the point, I don't think balance or stability was better on any given time or edition. The seasons and balance passes are simply something that resembles an e-sport and are probably here to stay. To me thats not that big of a problem - I just wish GW would move on with Warhammer+ and publishes all relevant books in updated form there.

 

Edited July 1 by Chaplain Killmer

[Cleon]

3 hours ago, Chaplain Killmer said:

 

Actually I read this frequently and I ask myself why I don't have that good memories about the 3rd edition, but maybe it was just me. The first things that come into my mind as DA player 

 

 

 

 

To be honest, as A Blood Angels player, I can see that 3rd ed Sucked for the Dark Angels and that could be a big part of it - the base 1 in 6 your unit refused to move was more annoying and less useful and much harder to plan around than the BA 1 in 6 you got extra move and had to move.

 

Personally my group stuck with 2nd ed so I didn't play much 3rd until I got to Uni and then it was pretty quickly into 3.5

[Orion]

On 6/26/2024 at 3:01 PM, TheTrans said:

I could be completely wrong, but I'm pretty sure thats it haha. But yeah was a fantastic weekend and peeps are keen for a visit to Armageddon next year!
 

Nah, Tau where 3rd also! You'll find the broad bulk of stuff in modern 40k was rattling around in 3rd. 
You say that, but Black Templars, Salamanders, Space Wolves, Blood Angels and Dark Angels all had, if not their own little supplement, at least alternate ways to run their armies. Hell even Deathwatch Existed as a Kill Team you could take as a HQ choice in all Imperial Armies.

Chaos actually had probably the best codex ever released, which ad rules for every founding legion and running full cult armies. I don't think GW has actually released any new characters of any meaningful consequence since the 3.5 book (outside of Huron). 

Third was honestly full to the brim of cool armies, units and themes, its absolutely fantastic! 

*EDIT* I did miss one, which is Knights, but... like... for better or worse, they are a fully fledged faction now... if any one wanted to run them, they'd get 1, as a War Machine detachment... like... they probably always should be haha ;). 

Just to add the pile. Witch Hunters and Daemonhunters were both 3rd. Very cool codices. 
Necrons too.

 

Chaos in general felt like a big deal in 3rd. Lore wise and on the table.

 

As for current editions, I don't see the game going anywhere soon that would bring me back.
So I guess I don't have a horse in this race.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

I’m just curious but what armies other than guard commonly took indirect fire weapons on the regular, especially in the competitive scene?

I can’t help but feel like this was a nerf directly aimed at guard because I really can’t think of any other faction known for their use of indirect fire weapons.  Maybe death guard with the plague burst crawler?

 

[Cleon]

42 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

I’m just curious but what armies other than guard commonly took indirect fire weapons on the regular, especially in the competitive scene?

I can’t help but feel like this was a nerf directly aimed at guard because I really can’t think of any other faction known for their use of indirect fire weapons.  Maybe death guard with the plague burst crawler?

 

Do Tau still use the markerlight, line of sight by proxy stuff? Is that covered?

[TrawlingCleaner]

It's mainly Guard and Eldar Weapons platforms, Death Guard use it quite a bit with their 'Crawlers.

I'll be frank, Indirect sucks to play against and Guard were one of the worst for Indirect spam hitting on 3+ or 2+ in some situations . All the reward for 0 risk, worse than being a potentially unbalanced mechanic, it's just straight up unfun and boring. I can understand real world applications, obviously, but some things just don't translate well into tabletop IMO

[Orion]

6 minutes ago, TrawlingCleaner said:

All the reward for 0 risk, worse than being a potentially unbalanced mechanic, it's just straight up unfun and boring. I can understand real world applications, obviously, but some things just don't translate well into tabletop IMO

 

Do we need to bring back this

 

 

[Focslain]

24 minutes ago, Cleon said:

Do Tau still use the markerlight, line of sight by proxy stuff? Is that covered?

All markerlights  do now is allow the Guided unit to ignore cover. 

[DemonGSides]

1 hour ago, Orion said:

 

Do we need to bring back this

 

 

 

I kinda have fond memories of the scatter die in 7th.  Fond in that "Sometimes chaos can be fun" kind of way, but I don't think it'd work in todays game.

 

 

I do think the Indirect changes were basically a middle finger to Guard Artillery, standard GW "Over correct and then correct again" style.

[Focslain]

1 hour ago, DemonGSides said:

 

I kinda have fond memories of the scatter die in 7th.  Fond in that "Sometimes chaos can be fun" kind of way, but I don't think it'd work in todays game.

 

 

I do think the Indirect changes were basically a middle finger to Guard Artillery, standard GW "Over correct and then correct again" style.

I don't know, a basilisk that hits on 2s, re-rolling ones with D6+3 shots at S8, AP-2(3) 2Dmg that I can't shoot back at seems like something that needed to be reined in. Fact that indirect went to a 50/50 shot at best is pretty decent.

[DemonGSides]

15 minutes ago, Focslain said:

I don't know, a basilisk that hits on 2s, re-rolling ones with D6+3 shots at S8, AP-2(3) 2Dmg that I can't shoot back at seems like something that needed to be reined in. Fact that indirect went to a 50/50 shot at best is pretty decent.

I think there's a middle ground between "Can't hit except on a coin flip" and what you've posited as their statline.  The hit on 2's required set up and investment.  I think the rule could be auto fail on 1 and 2 and it'd feel more fair, and then also take a look at the Scout Sentinel instead; either increase points or change the ability to something more specific instead of just eliminating the penalties for indirect.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

5 hours ago, TrawlingCleaner said:

It's mainly Guard and Eldar Weapons platforms, Death Guard use it quite a bit with their 'Crawlers.

I'll be frank, Indirect sucks to play against and Guard were one of the worst for Indirect spam hitting on 3+ or 2+ in some situations . All the reward for 0 risk, worse than being a potentially unbalanced mechanic, it's just straight up unfun and boring. I can understand real world applications, obviously, but some things just don't translate well into tabletop IMO

I mean there’s a lot of things I find unfun, but others find plenty fun lol.

 

again though the sweaty try hards ruin things.

 

very few people would play massed artillery lists if it weren’t for those types.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

2 hours ago, Focslain said:

I don't know, a basilisk that hits on 2s, re-rolling ones with D6+3 shots at S8, AP-2(3) 2Dmg that I can't shoot back at seems like something that needed to be reined in. Fact that indirect went to a 50/50 shot at best is pretty decent.

Plenty of options to get at artillery via reserves/deep strike, or your own artillery.

 

however being able to reroll when success is on a 2+ natural or modified is a feels bad situation regardless of any other context imho.

5 hours ago, Orion said:

 

Do we need to bring back this

 

 

Please, along with templates.

[Focslain]

48 minutes ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Plenty of options to get at artillery via reserves/deep strike, or your own artillery.

All of which are easily countered with moderate competent bit of placement and/or targeting. 

 

Also on the point of scatter and templates, HH has those.  

[Schlitzaf]

I never want to deal with scatter dice again the insanity of “arrow is pointing this way” or “anyone have a spare template/scatter dice”

[ZeroWolf]

11 minutes ago, Schlitzaf said:

I never want to deal with scatter dice again the insanity of “arrow is pointing this way” or “anyone have a spare template/scatter dice”

I think I'd actually be okay with the scatter dice returning (as a Blood Bowl veteran, I'm quite good at reading them ) I don't miss the other templates though, at least as far as 40k goes. I'm eager to try Necromunda and I believe they still use templates?

Edited July 3 by ZeroWolf
Fixed smiley

[Schlitzaf]

the issue is your opponent also good at reading them/agree on your reading? also remember to roll next to the scatter area?

 

[Noserenda]

Blood bowl, does not use the scatter dice like 40k used to? :D (I think thats the joke?) 

[The Unseen]

I don't overly miss scatter templates, though in a casual setting they are fine. But I do miss flamer templates, and those created far less arguing since you got to place those as you please, only having to have the thin end on the firing models base.

 

Anyone who has sat through a 5th edition leafblower Guard list does not want to bring scatter templates back in the same way.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

5 hours ago, Focslain said:

All of which are easily countered with moderate competent bit of placement and/or targeting. 

 

Also on the point of scatter and templates, HH has those.  

I don’t want to play HH, I want to play 40k 

 

the game was better with them.

[Noserenda]

True actually, the templates i really dislike were the round ones, the flamer was just lizard-brain-goodfun :D That said, flamers are a lot better on average now and my main 40k army uses a lot of them :D 

[The Unseen]

1 hour ago, Noserenda said:

True actually, the templates i really dislike were the round ones, the flamer was just lizard-brain-goodfun :D That said, flamers are a lot better on average now and my main 40k army uses a lot of them :D 

How are flamers better? Most of them lost all AP, and do a random d6 hits at slightly longer range than the old flamer template. Or way less range than any of the really good flamers with torrent used to have.
Flamers, other than the detachments that can make them do mortals, have been trash for like 4 editions running now.

It *USED* to be that if you got a flamer in close range to chaff infantry, you could evaporate a ton of models, it hit everything under the template, wounded chaff infantry on 3's just like now, ignored cover saves, and had AP5, meaning guardsmen/ gaunts/ ork boys didn't get saves. Now it'll be lucky to kill more than a single guardsmen.
(D6 hits average 3.5, wounds on a 3+, 5+ save, killing an average of a whopping 1.6 guardsmen)

Edited July 4 by The Unseen