Topic: 40k Players Survey

[Kage2020]

If you're training the sprog you could always order an old edition and codexes and run it as long as you're constant.

Good point. That raises another question, but one sufficiently OffT that I should probably take it to another thread before getting red-text.

[The GrimSqueaker]

The red text is an automatic coded feature, not special attention. 

[Kage2020]

The red text is an automatic coded feature, not special attention. 

I was only playing. It's good to have reminders.

[Irisado]

I have completed the survey.  It's quite strangely constructed if, like me, you do not play.  Nevertheless, I have outlined why I think that the game has fundamental flaws at the moment and provided suggestions about how they can fix them.  They won't take any notice because my ideas are far too radical, but at least I had the opportunity to make my point.

[Kage2020]

Would it be appropriate to discuss these ideas in a suitable venue (if not this thread)?

I'm less interested in the notion that the survey exists unless it is coupled with peoples' ideas about their perspectives on how it could be used to improve 40k.

[The GrimSqueaker]

Here's fine. I replied to it as a weekend warrior, as it were, of 40K players. I had the same issues of rule complexity and deluge while also stating I was not a current player.

[Wyddr]

Would it be appropriate to discuss these ideas in a suitable venue (if not this thread)?

I'm less interested in the notion that the survey exists unless it is coupled with peoples' ideas about their perspectives on how it could be used to improve 40k.

I would put money down that Irisado wants there to be no flyers, no superheavies, and smaller armies.

Of all that, I can definitely agree that the games should be smaller. Default point level should be 1500, not 2000. Just about every broken combo I can think of doesn't work half as well if you just chop 25% off the points limit.

[Irisado]

I would put money down that Irisado wants there to be no flyers, no superheavies, and smaller armies.

You forgot titans and knights .  You are correct though .  I went a lot further than that by proposing an entire redesign of the core rules around a percentile dice or D12/D10 system and a major reduction in the amount of dice rolling.  I believe that it is not possible to fix 40K for so long as GW remains committed to the D6.

[magenb]

Bring back CAD system, not this bring what ever you feel like, this will make it easier to balance.
Super heavies/knights/uber leaders like mortarion need to be restricted to x+ point sizes.
Strats need to be dropped and armies re-tooled to make up for the changes. Strats could be move to campaign systems as a one off reward, not every game.
Remove allies, leave that for narrative/campaign.
Deep striking needs to go back to scattering system.
Flamers need to max out at 1 hit per model in the unit become shot, their range needs to be pulled back.
Movement distances need some serious re-thinking, people on foot should not be able to move more than a rifle can shoot in a single turn.

Bring back twin linked and/or restrict units to max sizes more, seriously the number of shots has gotten silly.

Some units need to be 0-1, per x points to stop them being abused.

roll back all the re-roll effects, these need to be rare outside of twin linked.

If a strat has actual value so not shoot/fight twice bs, then make it a wargear option and point cost it. Shooting at deep striking unit would be handy, but it should also mean the have to forgo moving or shooting in their next turn, to reload or something, but again a point costed upgrade.

Remove can only take x wounds per turn. It's stupid and a side effect of moving to multiwound infantry models needing weapons that cause multiple wounds.

Stop the sales cycle... we love our armies, we don't need short term OP rules to convince us to buy stuff, fun balanced game play will do more for the company long term.

[Kage2020]

Back in the day, what I really wanted was a "system" that would allow me to play different scales of 40k but have them relatable somehow. Basically, a campaign system. This was the time that Mighty Empires had just been released, Epic was still going strong (ish), and Battlefleet Gothic was out, too. No 40k RPG, but you had WFRP and Critical Hit, so you could cobble something together without too much problem.

Skirmishes were actually skirmishes (40k) that played out to facilitate battles (Epic), all of which was related to a whole resource model (ME).

Terrible, terrible mechanics, of course, but we were young.

Question: Has GW come close to this in the subsequent years? If not, that would be a huge thing to add (for me) to the survey.

[Sir_Godspeed]

Not quite what you mentioned, but I think I recall the online campaigns, like 13th Black Crusade and the Third War for Armageddon accepting match results from several game systems? (40k, Epic, Battlefleet Gothic, iirc, at least)

There was also Inquisitor back in the day, but I'm not sure if that was ever tied into anything else.

I remember there being a lot of hullabaloo about Apocalypse rules years ago - was it just abandoned?

[Wyddr]

Apocalypse was basically lumped into the main game, generally speaking. The only thing keeping you from an Apocalypse game is point limit.

I, personally, LOVE stratagems--they are easily my favorite part of the game these days.

I honestly don't have too much of a problem with the base game or base mechanics. I just think the codexes and army-list-building has gotten needlessly bonkers. It isn't strictly codex creep anymore--it's codex sprawl. amphetamine parrot's all over the place and its just hard to keep track of what anything does anymore.

I was very pleased with how 8th edition was going. I, again, don't really see why GW felt the need to amp it up with 9th (though I do vastly prefer these missions and like the idea of secondary objectives a lot). 

[magenb]

Question: Has GW come close to this in the subsequent years? If not, that would be a huge thing to add (for me) to the survey.

No, you can't scale from a skirmish game to an EPIC sized game with a single rules set. The closest is probably 5th edition which had support materials to do basically kill team scale, combat patrol (2-3 units), to normal games, all the way up to Apoc. If you want to run apoc, set as side a weekend or have multiple players on each side to help move everything lol.  There is a fair amount of cross over in the rules sets though.

I know people have integrated kill team, combat patrols, standard matches AND BFG into their own campaign system, but BFG will use BFG rules. Some campaign start small and build up to an APOC game. So, you can certainly make things work.

5th had  ALOT of additional books, not in the way that 7th and 8th did, they weren't needed to play the base game, they just gave you different ways to enjoy your collection.

Part way through 8th they release a separate "apoc" game, which let you play Apoc scale games in about the same time as a 40k game. It actually needed less dice than a 40k game lol. IT wasn't what people were expecting and they didn't really want this sort of version of the game, so it died out.


EPIC has continued to be supported by the community, for me, it suffers from a lot of the same problems 8th and 9th does with regards to movement vs weapon ranges, and just units being able to scratch tanks to destruction.



GW has basically taken on the video game model, where the game doesn't even have to be working correctly before its shipped (hello BF2042), because they can quickly pump out "patches", and just like video games those patches tend to break other things... 8th and 9th feel very much like you are play testing the game and just when it gets to a decent place, they drop a new version and make all the same "mistakes" again.

In all honesty, GW need to pull it all back to bare bones, so play testing can be effective. Write everyone's codexes at the same time, release the lot of them (you could still stagger them if you really wanted to) and then use white dwarf to release new stuff as beta rules getting them ready for the next edition, like they did with warhammer fantasy 6th era. As the community keep trying to tell GW, most or the old armies actually have all the tools they need, we don't need new units, we are move than happy with new sculpts that are not space marines

[Sumshine]

In all honesty, GW need to pull it all back to bare bones, so play testing can be effective. Write everyone's codexes at the same time, release the lot of them (you could still stagger them if you really wanted to) and then use white dwarf to release new stuff as beta rules getting them ready for the next edition, like they did with warhammer fantasy 6th era. As the community keep trying to tell GW, most or the old armies actually have all the tools they need, we don't need new units, we are move than happy with new sculpts that are not space marines

Tbh I see more people posting the opposite than this opinion right now.  They want old codexes "reworked from the ground up" e.g. Nighthaunt and beastmen in AoS.  I haven't really payed attention to 40k specific community in awhile, but the painting discords that I'm on have 40k channels and it seems like similar complaints/requests.  Also, I for one am excited about the announcement about traitor guard, mutants, new possessed, etc for chaos in 2022.  I've always wanted to play the "Lost and the Damned" version of chaos space marines but never had the models.

Overall though, I think I agree with you.  I play so infrequently I would rather the rules just stay the same.  However, IMO 9th edition is waaaaaay better than all the editions I've played, which was primarily 4th, some 5th, and exactly 1 game of 6th.  I like stratagems a lot, and the objectives make things more interesting than they were.  I dislike the smaller board.  I really really really dislike that things aren't balanced, especially within individual codexes.

[Wyddr]

I dislike the smaller board.  I really really really dislike that things aren't balanced, especially within individual codexes.

Yes, 100% agree on the smaller board. I mean, I guess if you're just starting out, finding a board that is 24 square inches smaller is marginally easier, but not by much.

And yeah, the internal codex balance I think is a lot worse than the balance between codexes. There's just so much junk in every codex, it is an exercise in futility to even attempt to balance it all.

Just as a random example: how many different Great Cults get played for Thousand Sons? I'm guessing it's, like, three of them. The others are transparently worse, so why bother? And if you're going to give us a ton of options, why make a bunch of those options obviously terrible?

It reminds me of the long-beloved 3.5 edition Chaos codex. Some cool stuff people remember as being OP (Iron Warriors w/Basilisks!), but everything else? beslubbering garbage.   

[Grand Master Lomandalis]

It reminds me of the long-beloved 3.5 edition Chaos codex. Some cool stuff people remember as being OP (Iron Warriors w/Basilisks!), but everything else? beslubbering garbage.

We remember that codex very differently lol

[Kage2020]

It reminds me of the long-beloved 3.5 edition Chaos codex. Some cool stuff people remember as being OP (Iron Warriors w/Basilisks!), but everything else? beslubbering garbage.

We remember that codex very differently lol

Take the Eldar back to the days of WD127, I say! Nothing says OP more than a 150 grav D-Cannon guided by a Warlock with whatever the power was for doubling rage. You, too, can watch 5,000 point of Marines in vehicles disappear into the warp for the grand price of 250 points of your 5,000 point army.

*basks in the glory of yesteryear!*