PDA

View Full Version : Direction of 40k



Andy089
25-04-2015, 11:23
Hey guys,

I have been watching the direction 40k is going for about a year now without buying any new kits. But I was always planning on getting back into it.
However, with the latest iteration of the Eldar Codex and the Skitarii before that I am afraid 40k is heading in the opposite direction I'd like it to go... at this stage most units could be described as glass cannons. Sure - a wraithknight is quite a sturdy bloke but compared to the damage output of one, its resilience is rather mediocre. The problem I have is that I want my little fellas to stay on the board for more than a turn, especially my HQs, which I am putting a lot of effort in in order to make them stand out.

This is not so much a matter of balance between different units or codices but rather one of balance between offensive and defensive capabilities of models.

This is my main gripe about the heading of 40k at the moment (additionally to the usual pricing, unnecessary secrecy and limited runs of course)...

Spiney Norman
25-04-2015, 12:10
Hey guys,

I have been watching the direction 40k is going for about a year now without buying any new kits. But I was always planning on getting back into it.
However, with the latest iteration of the Eldar Codex and the Skitarii before that I am afraid 40k is heading in the opposite direction I'd like it to go... at this stage most units could be described as glass cannons. Sure - a wraithknight is quite a sturdy bloke but compared to the damage output of one, its resilience is rather mediocre. The problem I have is that I want my little fellas to stay on the board for more than a turn, especially my HQs, which I am putting a lot of effort in in order to make them stand out.

This is not so much a matter of balance between different units or codices but rather one of balance between offensive and defensive capabilities of models.

This is my main gripe about the heading of 40k at the moment (additionally to the usual pricing, unnecessary secrecy and limited runs of course)...

There are some armies that ae much more resilient, Necrons are one, it might also we worth keeping an eye out for Dark Angels as they are reported to be coming soon and have an established precedent for fielding all-terminator armies.

It is unfortunate that the proliferation of D weapon in the Eldar codex has essentially made any amount of resilience count for nothing, but I think the only real solution to that is to avoid play against it all together.

As for the direction of 40k, I'd say "round and round in circles" is about right, every edition has its overpowered codexes, whether that is 6th/7th edition Eldar or 5th edition Grey Knights, which make any serious attempt to engage the game as a tactical exercise impossible. If you want to play a good strategic game 40k is never going to be it.

Imo the new Eldar book has created a massive hobble for the future of the game because the only way to rein it in is going to be heavily nerfing Destroyer weapons which is obviously going to have a significant knock-on effect on all the apocalypse units which use it and may require the creation of yet another class of super-weapon to take its place.

Lord Damocles
25-04-2015, 13:47
Somebody just described a Wraithknight as 'mediocre'.

*Internet implodes*

WarsmithGarathor94
25-04-2015, 13:50
I know what you mean about resilence its what annoys me about chaos marine hqs i have to choose between either defence (tzeemch or nurgle) offence (khorne or slaanesh) or somewhere in between (unmarked). IMHO if your looking for a extremely competitive game 40k isnt it which il be honest im glad about

Spiney Norman
25-04-2015, 13:53
I know what you mean about resilence its what annoys me about chaos marine hqs i have to choose between either defence (tzeemch or nurgle) offence (khorne or slaanesh) or somewhere in between (unmarked). IMHO if your looking for a extremely competitive game 40k isnt it which il be honest im glad about

It's almost as if the guy who wrote CSM wanted players to have to make hard tactical choices between whether to be resilient of damage-dealing, clearly that was an alien concept to someone who thinks T6 models with a 3+ save carrying a strength D Flamer were a good idea.

WarsmithGarathor94
25-04-2015, 14:13
It's almost as if the guy who wrote CSM wanted players to have to make hard tactical choices between whether to be resilient of damage-dealing, clearly that was an alien concept to someone who thinks T6 models with a 3+ save carrying a strength D Flamer were a good idea.

I agree there apperently the tzeench daemon weapon was too op too cause ya know people complaining about a assault D6 ap3 bolter which could also be used in cc lok

Andy089
25-04-2015, 21:02
There are some armies that ae much more resilient, Necrons are one, it might also we worth keeping an eye out for Dark Angels as they are reported to be coming soon and have an established precedent for fielding all-terminator armies.

It is unfortunate that the proliferation of D weapon in the Eldar codex has essentially made any amount of resilience count for nothing, but I think the only real solution to that is to avoid play against it all together.

As for the direction of 40k, I'd say "round and round in circles" is about right, every edition has its overpowered codexes, whether that is 6th/7th edition Eldar or 5th edition Grey Knights, which make any serious attempt to engage the game as a tactical exercise impossible. If you want to play a good strategic game 40k is never going to be it.

Imo the new Eldar book has created a massive hobble for the future of the game because the only way to rein it in is going to be heavily nerfing Destroyer weapons which is obviously going to have a significant knock-on effect on all the apocalypse units which use it and may require the creation of yet another class of super-weapon to take its place.

Alright so consider this: An army composed fully of T4 2+/3++ models in AV14 vehicles (with the corresponding price tag of course). Sure, this army is somewhat more resilient than your average space Marine army. But compare it to the damage output of all armies around and I think it won't make that much of a difference - just look at Grey Knights. Also Necrons can take a beating but again they put out A LOT more damage than they can take...
The main problem is that, even if I want to spend the points I can't make a model survive long enough due to the sheer firepower of the other side.

As you were saying there is an arms race within 40k, but the problem is it's only an offensive one. Things don't last longer, they just hit harder. And that's the real issue I think. I would be REALLY happy if that changed. Changing the rules for cover saves (reducing BS, like they did ages ago) and perhaps the wounding-tables. And vehicles generally of course. I have been working on a rule-set for some time but I never got around finishing it. You might see it up here fairly soon though =)



Somebody just described a Wraithknight as 'mediocre'.

*Internet implodes*

I did not. All I said was that the defensive capabilities compared to its offensive ones are mediocre. So the interwebz is fine.

glados
27-04-2015, 11:38
I think a game where a huge amount of troops both sides die is always a lot more fun then one where hardly are wiped out.

IG vs Tyranids or Orks will always be one of the classic and fun match ups for that exact reason.

Spiney Norman
27-04-2015, 12:26
I think a game where a huge amount of troops both sides die is always a lot more fun then one where hardly are wiped out.

IG vs Tyranids or Orks will always be one of the classic and fun match ups for that exact reason.

Except in a game which uses an IGOUGO system that almost never happens, whoever goes first gets to decimate the opposing side, who then doesnt have the remaining firepower to respond in kind.

Bloodknight
27-04-2015, 12:29
It used to work for IG vs Orks and Nids because IG were shooty but you didn't need much to wipe their units out in CC. The game has shifted too much towards shooting, though.

totgeboren
27-04-2015, 12:31
I think a game where a huge amount of troops both sides die is always a lot more fun then one where hardly are wiped out.

IG vs Tyranids or Orks will always be one of the classic and fun match ups for that exact reason.

Definitely, but the problem the op is pointing out is that it's not as much fun removing 20 models per turn if you only have 50 to start with and your opponent 100. Having less but more resilient models matter less and less, when the firepower goes up across the board but the resilience does not. It also increased the first turn advantage by quite a bit, so in general leads to less enjoyable games.

Heh, I just made an army list using the Unending Horde formation for Vraks Renegades. 1750 pts, 200 infantry models and three tanks, and 180 of the infantry models will be recycled on a 2+ when they die! Viva La Revolucion!

malmo89
27-04-2015, 13:52
I think it helps in general as it allows for more spontaneous game changing moments, it's dull when there are things you just cannot kill. However it does greater highlight the flaws of working with a system whereby each players takes their entire turn before the other. With things being ever more destructive that first turn can be so devastating - and whilst it's important to use lots of terrain the best course of action seems to be using reserves and keeping units off the table which i've always found far less fun than just having two large armies squaring up on turn 1.

glados
27-04-2015, 14:02
I know there's a lot of ignore cover weapons out there, but are you guys just deploying out in the open or something? or just playing on boards with little cover? I put a lot behind cover if I'm deploying second and dont really find that I'm getting half my army wiped T1 etc.

Spiney Norman
27-04-2015, 14:07
I know there's a lot of ignore cover weapons out there, but are you guys just deploying out in the open or something? or just playing on boards with little cover? I put a lot behind cover if I'm deploying second and dont really find that I'm getting half my army wiped T1 etc.

I deploy my DE behind cover whether I get first turn or not, I remember one game where my opponent stole the initiative and I lost half my army in the first shoot phase because I'd not obscured my stuff on the assumption I would be going first.

It depends what you're playing, my dark Eldar generally find that one or two failed cover saves on an open topped A10 transport are enough to make it go bang, then you've probably lost 2/3 of whatever it was carrying as well. When you've got 6-10 scatter lasers aimed at you from a single unit you're statistically going to fail at least some of those saves.

Andy089
01-05-2015, 10:51
Cover rarely gives you anything better than the armour save you already have. The point is... with the current offensive capabilities of armies, the defense does not really matter. Your uber HQ won't survive turn 1, your best and hardiest vehicles won't survive turn 1. Frankly I think that it is much more of a game changing moment when you bring down something that's hard to kill, rather than something that would die rather easily anyway...

Denny
01-05-2015, 11:39
Cover rarely gives you anything better than the armour save you already have. The point is... with the current offensive capabilities of armies, the defense does not really matter. Your uber HQ won't survive turn 1, your best and hardiest vehicles won't survive turn 1. Frankly I think that it is much more of a game changing moment when you bring down something that's hard to kill, rather than something that would die rather easily anyway...

Depends which army you play as. Most of Dark Eldar armour saves are either 6+ or 5+.

Frankly, I struggle to find cover saves that are worse than my armour.

Andy089
01-05-2015, 12:45
Depends which army you play as. Most of Dark Eldar armour saves are either 6+ or 5+.

Frankly, I struggle to find cover saves that are worse than my armour.

Sorry - I meant compared to what you're facing. Most "ignores cover" guns come with an AP that's often good enough to penetrate that 5+. I am just saying that stats and abilities often end up effectless because of the sheer firepower of the other side.

ehlijen
01-05-2015, 14:02
40k is designed to not have much left on the table by turn 5. For that, stuff needs to die quickly, especially given the size of games commonly played (to justify to inclusion of such big models).

If you want a game grinding combat where both sides slowly wear each other away, 40k isn't it. The rules are too lethal, the average game size too huge to facilitate more than a few turns. The only suggestions I can think of are battletech and Starfleet battles. Battlefleet Gothic isn't too bad, it can support longer slugging matches, but most scenarios aren't really written for that direction.

For once I'm not actually bashing 40k, I'm just saying it's deliberately designed to provide a different experience. If done well, that's a valid direction.

Spiney Norman
01-05-2015, 14:35
40k is designed to not have much left on the table by turn 5. For that, stuff needs to die quickly, especially given the size of games commonly played (to justify to inclusion of such big models).

If you want a game grinding combat where both sides slowly wear each other away, 40k isn't it. The rules are too lethal, the average game size too huge to facilitate more than a few turns. The only suggestions I can think of are battletech and Starfleet battles. Battlefleet Gothic isn't too bad, it can support longer slugging matches, but most scenarios aren't really written for that direction.

For once I'm not actually bashing 40k, I'm just saying it's deliberately designed to provide a different experience. If done well, that's a valid direction.

I think that's fine as long as 40k doesn't just become 'first turn hammer' or 'reserve hammer' as the only two viable strategies

Malixian
01-05-2015, 16:25
My big concern with the direction of 40k is that GW seemed to be on a trend of toning down excess and creating a fairly balanced environment with the 7th ed codexes (currently in an escalation that started in part because it looked like GW was actually balancing 40k). With Necrons (especially the Decurion detachment) and now Eldar it looks as though GW just pulled a 180 and moved the power bar up several levels. As a dark eldar player I'm left wondering whats going to happen. The power gap between these new codexes and the earlier 7th ed ones are so big I'm not sure you can even have functional game with them anymore. My codex is only about 8 months old but is so hopelessly outmatched I might just have to shelve it and wait who knows how long for GW to get around to updating it again.

HelloKitty
01-05-2015, 16:40
This is standard GW. I think every edition they have done something similar unfortunately.

skorczeny
01-05-2015, 17:51
This is standard GW. I think every edition they have done something similar unfortunately.

The perception is that things are getting worse. Every edition, the gap between the bottom tier and top tier gets bigger. As such, the probability of having a random p/u game be an enjoyable and evenly matched game gets lower and lower. In other words, the probability of two random 40k players finding the same things about the hobby fun is lower and lower.

And with the increased output of new rule books (too many books!) you could argue that things are getting worse faster. But this increased production speed of books does leave the possibility of things getting better faster too.

HelloKitty
01-05-2015, 22:15
That perception that the current edition is the worst is also present in every edition.

Playing against grey knights or space wolf missile spam in 5th using a lower tier codex was equally frustrating and akin to having ones genitals smashed in a door repeatedly.

insectum7
01-05-2015, 22:25
If you want a game grinding combat where both sides slowly wear each other away, 40k isn't it. The rules are too lethal, the average game size too huge to facilitate more than a few turns. The only suggestions I can think of are battletech and Starfleet battles. Battlefleet Gothic isn't too bad, it can support longer slugging matches, but most scenarios aren't really written for that direction.


Every game I've played against the new Necrons has been a long, slow grind. 40K can be fast or slow, depending on lists, strategies and terrain.

Spiney Norman
02-05-2015, 00:26
That perception that the current edition is the worst is also present in every edition.

Playing against grey knights or space wolf missile spam in 5th using a lower tier codex was equally frustrating and akin to having ones genitals smashed in a door repeatedly.

So not dissimilar to playing against one or more wraithknights in this edition then ;)

Scribe of Khorne
02-05-2015, 04:54
The game is heading to Apoc-Lite. Its undeniable at this point, and yes, your bog standard grunt on foot suffers for it.


That perception that the current edition is the worst is also present in every edition.

Playing against grey knights or space wolf missile spam in 5th using a lower tier codex was equally frustrating and akin to having ones genitals smashed in a door repeatedly.

Isnt this the truth. I took a missle spam Wolf list out once...put it away after that. I want to play a game, not destroy someone's will to live.

insectum7
02-05-2015, 06:43
The game is heading to Apoc-Lite. Its undeniable at this point, and yes, your bog standard grunt on foot suffers for it.

Yeah, I don't like that either. In general I think the gamut of variability should be brought down by about 20 -30%.

Emperor Karl Franz
02-05-2015, 08:26
It's interesting to consider that in light of what GW's doing to Fantasy. They pushed for bigger and bigger armies in Fantasy, creating a game which was prohibitively expensive to get into, which apparently has cost them sales, and now they're blowing up the entire setting in order to remake it into a skirmish game which has a lower cost for entry. Meanwhile, on the 40k side, they're putting out Detachments, Formations, and rules which are pushing people to play bigger and more expensive armies, thus making the cost of entry for 40k higher and higher. I wonder how long that can be pushed before it starts to significantly hurt sales and they end up doing an End Times style reboot to get it back down to a small skirmish scale level again?

HelloKitty
08-05-2015, 20:33
So not dissimilar to playing against one or more wraithknights in this edition then ;)

At small points definitely.

I think in 2000 or so pts one wraith knight is fine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ehlijen
09-05-2015, 02:42
That perception that the current edition is the worst is also present in every edition.


To be fair, if each edition is in fact worse than the previous one, that is the perception one will have.


Every game I've played against the new Necrons has been a long, slow grind. 40K can be fast or slow, depending on lists, strategies and terrain.

The game still only lasts for 5-7 turns (by design in the core scenarios, by practiality for most common game sizes). Maybe not as much will be dead after if you play necrons, but that didn't make the game slower or longer, you had the exact same number of turns to make decisions in.

Freman Bloodglaive
09-05-2015, 04:46
5th edition was a puzzle for me. My Space Wolves had been, from 3rd edition, Grey Hunters in Rhinos, Dreadnoughts, and Long Fangs with a mix of lascannons and missile launchers.

Then all of a sudden they were actually good, not as good as if I'd spammed Razorbacks, but certainly better than they were.

A missile spam Space Wolf list might be able to knock down a Wraithknight now.

Pink Horror
09-05-2015, 19:23
The game still only lasts for 5-7 turns (by design in the core scenarios, by practiality for most common game sizes). Maybe not as much will be dead after if you play necrons, but that didn't make the game slower or longer, you had the exact same number of turns to make decisions in.

If fewer units die, more stuff is on the board for more turns. A turn takes longer if you have to act with more stuff. The number of turns is not the same thing as the amount of time something lasts.

Eldarsif
09-05-2015, 19:27
That perception that the current edition is the worst is also present in every edition.

This is so true.

I think it's actually partially better now. In previous edition the codex churn was so slow that you were stuck with a codex much longer. Now the churn is faster so we are seeing faster updates and changes to the system.

ObiWayneKenobi
09-05-2015, 19:32
This is so true.

I think it's actually partially better now. In previous edition the codex churn was so slow that you were stuck with a codex much longer. Now the churn is faster so we are seeing faster updates and changes to the system.

But the rules coming out are even more untested garbage where the rules are secondary to pushing new models to fanboys. There's a middle ground between "Something new every week to get you to buy buy buy" and "It's going to be years before you see an update".

totgeboren
09-05-2015, 19:32
That perception that the current edition is the worst is also present in every edition.

I can't say I can relate to that. All the people I play with seem to think 3ed was the worst edition, while 4ed was probably the most fun editon (though not without its flaws of course).
The base rules (not taking codex-specific rules that mess up the game like the Eldar do now), then 7ed is regarded pretty highly around here (much better than 6ed was et least). It's lots of fun, but you still on average had better balanced games in 4ed.

40k will become much worse if they keep pushing out stuff at the same power level as Eldar, because when everything has such high offensive output, any unbalance that occurs early on will spiral out of control much faster, meaning you will know who will win in like turn 2-3 just by looking at who has the lead.

HelloKitty
09-05-2015, 19:48
The gw forums existed during 4th edition. Let me tell you how much 4th was loved at the time. It was loved so much that the daily rage fest that went on on those forums saw the whole thing shut down.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

totgeboren
09-05-2015, 20:03
The gw forums existed during 4th edition. Let me tell you how much 4th was loved at the time. It was loved so much that the daily rage fest that went on on those forums saw the whole thing shut down.

Hehe, yeah I remember that. But still, the group I played with then (and me included) still thought 4ed was soooo much better than 3ed.

But just because I think 7ed is a better game than 3ed does not mean I think everything about 7ed is perfect. There is always room for improvement.

Bloodknight
09-05-2015, 21:11
All the people I play with seem to think 3ed was the worst edition, while 4ed was probably the most fun editon (though not without its flaws of course).
The base rules (not taking codex-specific rules that mess up the game like the Eldar do now), then 7ed is regarded pretty highly around here (much better than 6ed was et least). It's lots of fun, but you still on average had better balanced games in 4ed.

40K is a bit like Windows, every 2nd release is pretty bad ;).

ehlijen
10-05-2015, 01:17
If fewer units die, more stuff is on the board for more turns. A turn takes longer if you have to act with more stuff. The number of turns is not the same thing as the amount of time something lasts.

No, the number of turns is capped by the scenario. If less things die, then you just have less things happening and longer to play turns, you do not have a game that is more of a slugging match.

What the people asking for a slower paced game want is not spending more time on less happening (ie less things dying), they want to spend less time per turn so they can have more turns.
Battletech for example tends to resolve around turn 8-12 in most matches (fewer if both sides have rushing beatsticks, longer if both sides play the range game), yet it takes about the same time to play as a 1.5k 40k game with ~half the turns.

The lethality of the average turn needs to match the expected number of turns to result in a game that is both fun to play each turn of and will end in a satisfying conclusion within a reasonable amount of time. 40k is geared to have few, very lethal turns. Some games have even less, some have more. Each style has their fans.