Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

<insert meme of man on gallows looking over and asking “First time?”>

So between chatting with a younger opponent Sunday and seeing Jidmah”s post in the ork tactics thread I thought it might be a good idea to have a thread to talk about edition change. Not the rules or models, although I’m sure we’ll touch on those. We’ve got the news and rumors section to really dig into those. But more general stuff. While some of us have done this a few times, for a lot of people out there, it’s their first rodeo.

Even if you don’t have plans to stick with 10th, you might want to download the rules packets/FAQ/Errata. And if you do plan on sticking with 10th, grab everything you can. While the internet never truly forgets, GW will purge the old from their web to support the new edition. Best to have a copy stashed on your hard drive.

The rules will change. Some will get better, others worse. Each edition has it’s pros and cons, and deciding on what goes on what side of the ledger is very subjective. But the game will still be 40k. They said the old codexes will still be valid, so the changes should be minor. When they reset the codexes and go with index/core book lists things can be shaken up more, but that is not the case this time.

Most of your models will be fine. Some may go to legends. Or need to be counts-as to a more modern dataslate. But unless you’ve been kitbashing for obscure options, as a newer player this is less of a worry. Older players with stuff that’s already been in legends for a few editions have a little more to fear. On the flip side, sometimes things from the past get new kits and a new lease on life. I won’t say not to worry about this, but it’s not as huge a deal as it’s made out to be. Sucks hard when it hits some of your favorite minis in your collection. But the Rule of Cool covers a lot of sins, and unless you are playing in tournaments, you might be able to work something out with the folks at your FLGS.

If you are building things, consider magnets for major options. Sometimes options get dropped/added, but often the rules get tweaked to make one the best call. Today plasma might be the go-to, but tomorrow might be melta. Magnets help future proof your collection.

Finish painting old minis. I was in the middle of working though some old termagants when we started seeing new pics of the gribblies in the Leviathan box. Nothing will suck the wind out of your motivational sails faster. Get those guys across the workbench before they become permanent members of the Pile of Shame.

Try not to jump to conclusions. We are in the early parts of the “wait and see” timeframe. With just snippets of facts. It’s easy to fill in the unknowns with worst case scenarios. Try not to. Plenty of time to rage and hate when we have the full picture, or at least less unknowns. Aim for cautious optimism. You don’t want to set your sights so high you get disappointed when those loft goals are not met. GW will drop the ball on a few points. But 40k will still be 40k, and you can still push models around and have a good time.

I’ll post more later, gotta get on with my day. Hopefully my fellow grognards will add more tips, and we’ll be here to answer what questions we can.

Everytime an Edition changes or the next codex for one of my forces approaches I offer up a prayer that it won't F up my army....
(Repeated nowadays every 3 months thanks to GWs "Balance Slates" constant pts tinkering.)

It didn't completely work for this last time.
For ex:
●10e was NOT kind to my Drukhari - I went from having a 2k list to losing 1/2 my pts AND having 6 models relegated to the shelf (3 Talos, 3 Cronos)
●My Grots also got kicked in the balls this edition.
Gretchen lost Battleline. And my Big Gunz (Legends)? were reduced in squad size, lost the ability to be bought together but deployed as separate units, & of all the possible insults were made BS6+.

I am in the process of getting back into the game, just waiting on 11th to drop so I don't go through the trouble of learning and then unlearning the 10th edition rules.

After many on-again-off-again editions, I'm leaving behind my beloved Imperial Guard, the first army I ever had. Their final expedition taking them past the event horizon of the Segmentum Ebay. The heavy guns of the Steigen 13th rest, having decimated many xenos and traitor forces over the years.

The 3rd sentinel scout squadron with its heavy flamers was reknowned for its ability to hold the line against waves of Ork and Tyranid infantry assaults. The transport and logistics corps managed to drive their chimeras through hellfire time after time and only ever exploded after their passengers had already disembarked. The Emperor's Word basilisk and her crew's very first shot ever taken destroyed a traitor land raider and the terminator squad within. Commissar Galen lead hundreds of conscripts into the thick of the fight, almost all of them meeting a glorious end against foes who were mostly just annoyed there were so many of them. Colonel Snufflepants, a ratling, usually managed to survive battle, strategically staying behind the lines with the heavy weapons teams. And the army's storm troopers and rough riders usually died having achieved nothing at all.

I now take up arms for the Tau'va and the Alamai Auxiliary Cadre. My Tau and Kroot combat patrols await assembly.

It’s been so long now, that I can’t remember which edition I dropped out on.

Oh, not because of the game Dear Reader. Oh no. Because of that pox upon all our rumps, Real Life.

Around 2012 or so I started working up That London, which involved commuting and all the personal time pressures such an activity brings. Something had to give, and it was Hobby Time.

When the Great Plague arrived? I was hopelessly out of touch, and GW stores had abandoned gaming nights. So that left only the local club, which of course couldn’t go on.

In the brighter times? Been working from home since. But given said then local club was focussed on Organised Events and that? I was without someone willing to walk me through the latest edition, so I never felt incentivised to relearn the ropes.

Honestly the best advice I would give is Just Stop Buying Stuff

Yes, the codices and campaign books are still going to be valid, but "Valid" and "Good" are two different things

Same goes for units. You can be reasonably sure your staples are going to operate in roughly the same way, but the specifics of loadouts might be different. Magnets are good, waiting and seeing is better

Especially don't buy a codex if you play Space Marines or {Insert new edition enemy faction here}. They're inevitably the first out of the gate for a new book so you're throwing away money on a book that will be valid for a period of months

If you collect a non-starter-box army? Expect FAQs. Your codex will be "valid" for given values of "valid", which may include "valid with three pages of errata some of which rewrites core aspects of your army"

A lot of things Doc listed can mitigate the risk, but nothing as well as Just Stop Buying Stuff. The models aren't going anywhere (unless they get replaced with new ones, like the defiler, which you get plenty of notice of), IIRC we aren't expecting a price hike before the next edition. Just Stop Buying Stuff does not affect you negatively in any way, and helps you level your Impulse Control and Saving Money stats

When the new edition hits you can Capitalism to your heart's content, with all the annoying variables stripped away-

I’ll definitely recommend ‘do better’ when it comes to a given army suffering from edition change.

Before you go spending money to update and refresh and worse (don’t worry, explanation coming) chasing the meta? Relearn your army.

The meta is a thing. Sure. And embracing that is a valid part of the hobby, albeit not on to my personal taste.

But….don’t ever believe the hype. Sure, List X for Army Z might be considered “topperest tier”. Yet it still requires an understanding of the game system and its peculiar maths.

If that’s all you ever do? Are you really learning and understanding the game? Are you really building your knowledge and skills in that way?

Hence…at least for a bit, stick with your existing army. To know it sucks now isn’t the same wisdom as knowing why it sucks now.

This is general good life advice as well, to be honest.

I just spent 217 bucks on the Legio Custodes box.

I'm all ready for a new edition!

(Because I've never played Custodes in any edition)

I eagerly await the influx of 2nd hand models at my FLGS as people dump armies.

Related to what Mad Doc was talking about.
If all you've got is 1 army & the new edition gut punches it?
Unless you need about 1/3 of what you paid for it?
Dont sell it off right away. Keep it & figure out how to make it work while you build army #2.
After you've built enough of army #2? Then reevaluate army #1.

 Nevelon wrote:
The rules will change. Some will get better, others worse. Each edition has it’s pros and cons, and deciding on what goes on what side of the ledger is very subjective. But the game will still be 40k. They said the old codexes will still be valid, so the changes should be minor. When they reset the codexes and go with index/core book lists things can be shaken up more, but that is not the case this time.

My post on the ork thread was rather short, but since I inspired you to a whole thread on this, I'll go in detail.

That rules will change is true, but the more important thing to understand is that rules will definitely not stay the same.
Sounds like stupid ork logic, but the difference is important.
A new edition usually breaks all the combos and all the clever rules interactions your favorite army list relies on now right now. And most importantly, it will be an upheaval to balance. Things which are well priced now might become horrendously overpriced, while other units are going to be super effective. Datasheets might be combined, split or function completely different. Especially the leader/supporter change will is going to shake up stuff, and that's just the first thing they told us.
Which means your army is going to change. You will bring more of some things and less of others. You might not be able or want to field the units you field today.
So if you feel the urge to buy more stuff, don't buy stuff you already heave. Buy something you don't have - it makes your collection more robust to change. And maybe that model you just bought is the new hot thing next edition and you already have one ready to go while everyone else is waiting for GW to restock.

Most of your models will be fine. Some may go to legends. Or need to be counts-as to a more modern dataslate. But unless you’ve been kitbashing for obscure options, as a newer player this is less of a worry. Older players with stuff that’s already been in legends for a few editions have a little more to fear. On the flip side, sometimes things from the past get new kits and a new lease on life. I won’t say not to worry about this, but it’s not as huge a deal as it’s made out to be. Sucks hard when it hits some of your favorite minis in your collection. But the Rule of Cool covers a lot of sins, and unless you are playing in tournaments, you might be able to work something out with the folks at your FLGS.

Especially counts-as is a huge thing. We live in an age where you see 3D printed and 3rd party models/bases bits every other game. No one is going to complain that your 30 year old metal Big Mek with KMB is not the correct Big Mek miniature as long as you have the right base attached to it.

If you are building things, consider magnets for major options. Sometimes options get dropped/added, but often the rules get tweaked to make one the best call. Today plasma might be the go-to, but tomorrow might be melta. Magnets help future proof your collection.

The best option for any unit has changed with pretty much every codex AND every edition, sometimes even more often. GW models are expensive, spend some extra money and time to magnetize them. For the vast majority of models, magnetizing is super easy once you get the hang of it. You can get a hand drill for super cheap from amazon or chinese dropship stores.

That said, I never magnetized a single infantry model, I just have extras which I can switch in and out.

Try not to jump to conclusions. We are in the early parts of the “wait and see” timeframe. With just snippets of facts. It’s easy to fill in the unknowns with worst case scenarios. Try not to. Plenty of time to rage and hate when we have the full picture, or at least less unknowns. Aim for cautious optimism. You don’t want to set your sights so high you get disappointed when those loft goals are not met. GW will drop the ball on a few points. But 40k will still be 40k, and you can still push models around and have a good time.

This is important. Social media channels get money from engagement. For 40k, negative news have proven to generate more engagement than positive news, which means many channels are specialized in hating on everything 40k related. Big influencers who have never touched a mini in their life hate on 40k to farm engagement.
If you are angry at GW, make sure you have your own reasons

The last thing I wrote is "Don't buy any books with rules in them." and I mean it. If you want a 10th edition codex for the lore, those will be really cheap second hand soon. If you don't have a codex yet, you won't need one for some time anyways. If you plan to start a crusade, maybe wait a few months to do so. Being a campaign master is already one hell of a job, you don't want to add a mid-crusade edition change and having to house rule a whole book on your plate as well.

History has shown that most editions aren't being played outside of small bubbles of friends. I highly doubt that 10th edition will be one of those editions, as it's biggest achievements is continuedly adapting the game to solve problems players face for the first time in the games history. With no more changes happening and no more new card decks being released, the edition is going to be dull quickly - as one of its biggest criticisms is that missions feel too repetitive.

Playing Deathwatch is kind of like the castle in a swamp joke. Every edition has destroyed my collection and replaced it with different units. Like the joke though, I've now got enough wreckage below me to weather the next storm relatively comfortably.

I think faction hopping in an age where GW is actively patching is pretty foolish in general and doubly so during an edition change. Whatever is OP is probably going to get an overcompensated reaction (except Eldar). Don't jump on the first order meta.

Generally speaking unless you're trying to win Worlds, the best advice is to just add to what you've got without going all in. Rule of 2 is a pretty safe direction these days. It's enough to build a strong list but not so much but get destroyed by errata. Growing a single army into a robust collection will eventually let you start adapting your list by pulling stuff off the shelf rather than always needing to buy something to catch up. I do find a second faction something worthwhile eventually though as something to fall back on when your main is in a slump or when you just need something different.

If you're looking to top major tournaments you might need to chase the meta a bit more. Push the rule of 3 farther and have a few more factions with a lot of repeat units. Keep in mind that even then, you're better off getting as many reps in than changing your list all the time. Learning the flow of the game, your rules and how to spend your resources will generally take you farther than anything in the list.

Changes be change. And the more GW says the game stays the same, the more it will change. I do wonder about one thing though. The way missions are decided is linked what detachment you run. Which as an idea is interesting. I see a small problem with it though, a lot people in my play group have one army, the army often isn't much over what the avarge sized points game. People like their full infantry IG, swarm BT or no SoS custodes. I worry that with how the games scenarios are decided people will be forced to play the same scenarios over and over again. Even if there are 2-3 to pick from, for X vs Y match up, this still is 2-3 scenarios for three years of playing. Not a problem for big time tournament players hoping from army to army, but not so good for everyone else.
And yes I know we are wierd, because in pick up games we use tournament rule sets. So the whole "just ask your opponent" is not going to work around here.

I also worry a bit for my dudes weapons. When they described the Venguard Vets , and maybe I am reading too much in to this, they say something like "relic weapon" describing his sword. I hope this doesn't translate in to GK weapons being the same as they were in 10th.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LunarSol wrote:


Generally speaking unless you're trying to win Worlds, the best advice is to just add to what you've got without going all in. Rule of 2 is a pretty safe direction these days. It's enough to build a strong list but not so much but get destroyed by errata. Growing a single army into a robust collection will eventually let you start adapting your list by pulling stuff off the shelf rather than always needing to buy something to catch up. I do find a second faction something worthwhile eventually though as something to fall back on when your main is in a slump or when you just need something different.

I don't think you need to want to win World for army list content to be a problem. I mean you can try, and spend a lot of money, on big chaos knights or try to play SoS , all terminator armies , brood brothers etc and if you do that you are going to have a very bad time. Heck you can play non ultramarines marines and you are going to have nerfs coming your way, because of units your army can't run. There is also the problem with the robust thing. It is true that the optimal way to play GW games is to have 3-4 full armies which content is "everything GW produces times X", but not everyone can afford or likes that. A BT swarm player or an IG who wants just tanks/infantry/cav/etc may not want to buy 3-6 dreadnoughts and 2-4 tanks for his BT army, or the rest of the IG line. GW has odd way of writing codex since , I would say, end of 9th. There is a pre build list, maybe two if you are lucky/eldar. And everything else is so bad that the only way to play, lets say First Company Detachment, is if your opponent plays both a bad army, and does not know how to play. And God help you if his army works, because then the game can end turn one, just because of VP math and game mechanics. And again I am not saying that the optimal way to play GW games is not to hav 3-4 6-10k armies.

This might come off as grumpy, but an edition change is the best time for a playing group to decide whether they really want to continue GW's treadmill or jump off to try other more stable rule Systems. My group did the jump when 10th arrived, we now play OPR and haven't looked back, well I do occasionally, to see what's going on or to get Inspiration for our OPR campaigns, but the other guys only follow model releases now. One guy even started a new "40K" group and made them use OPR right from the start.
The upside of this is that, as Real life takes a lot of time the older you get, you save money buying books you do only 3 games with before they're replaced. With fewer changes in the rules it also opens up for adding/rewriting stuff you don't like or find not explored enough, which is quite tough when the rules have changed whenever you get a game on the table (and when people are still not firm in the base tactics because of the many changes).

ccs wrote:
I eagerly await the influx of 2nd hand models at my FLGS as people dump armies.

Related to what Mad Doc was talking about.
If all you've got is 1 army & the new edition gut punches it?
Unless you need about 1/3 of what you paid for it?
Dont sell it off right away. Keep it & figure out how to make it work while you build army #2.
After you've built enough of army #2? Then reevaluate army #1.

Also, just your existing synergies no longer work, doesn’t mean your army is therefore devoid of them. Sit down with your codex and rulebook, and see what (if any to be honest) new synergies might be lying in wait.

Whilst I think it’s rare a given army collection will just start being good at a new thing? It could be you only need one or two new units to rejig and refresh.

It’s also worth be aware Not All Codexes Suffer The Same Fate.

Space Marines for example tend to survive Edition Change pretty nicely. Oh there’ll be new hotness, of course there will. But I’m willing to bet an army collected in say, 4th Edition will still be a viable army in 11th.

Craftworld Eldar however have a different history. Sure, every single edition they’ve had Horror Combo. But it’s usually been wildly different builds. So yeah, Jetbike Spam was strong for an edition. Then it was Flying Circus. Then Wraith Spam. But crucially here? Whatever the hotness was? You could guarantee it objectively sucked in the next Codex.

Dark Eldar? Yeeesh.

It’s also only partially true that the complaints come from those who seek a finely tuned tournament army. Yeah, if you overly rely on the meta? Edition and Codex Change will clobber you. But, ref Craftworlders? If your previous codex only provided one or two builds that stood even a ghost of a chance? The complaints about having to, essentially, shell out for a new army each time, are incredibly valid.

But…always take some time first to understand the changes, how they apply to you, and what your genuine options are for updating your army.

Personally the rule changes from 2nd to 3rd killed things. Didn't play after that until club had a resurgence with 8th, but then numbers steadily declined and we have gone from several games a club night to 1 a month. Maybe edition change will get people back. No idea.

I stopped back in...7th? I just felt they were taking the piss with the incredibly short 6e, and I felt neither 6e or 7e had really improved the game.

When 8th rolled around, they changed the scale of the miniatures and I wasn't interesting in rebuying my collection so I'm a One Page Rules and Xenos Rampant man nowadays.

It's an interesting phenomenon that people are always keen to keep going with the most recent edition. Like, looking at Old World, it just looks worse than any other edition of WFB I've seen (and I played from 5th to 8th). I've got no interest in playing a bad game just because it's "supported".

Without offering an opinion on what good games are? People just play what’s played.

OPR isn’t formally published. And I’ve got to say I’ve never heard of Xenos Rampant before.

40K is formally published, and widely so. It has the greatest reach and interaction online. And so, it’s the most widely played, because it’s the most instantly accessible. Good or bad rules, it’s still the entry point and the dominant rule set.

 Da Boss wrote:

It's an interesting phenomenon that people are always keen to keep going with the most recent edition. Like, looking at Old World, it just looks worse than any other edition of WFB I've seen (and I played from 5th to 8th). I've got no interest in playing a bad game just because it's "supported".

It's not that odd. People are always looking for new experiences. The primary focus is on new movies, new foods, new music, new ideas and challenges. It should come as no surprise that people want their minis experience to feel new and fresh regularly as well.

I also think, for the most part, the game DOES get consistently better on the whole. Part of that might be from starting at the actual bottom of the pile that was 7th, but 8th, 9th and 10th have all been significant improvements to a game I once wrote off as woefully outdated.

Yeah rules wise I don't have much negative to say about modern 40K but I hate scale creep.

I disagree that newer games are always better though, I think games often peak and then deteriorate over time if they keep fiddling with them.

I've played almost every edition, but I sat out 6th and 7th because of GW's treatment of Sisters. When I returned, 8th and 9th saw me spend more on the hobby than I had since 2nd-3rd.

But I really slowed down in 10th. I still bought a few Codices and a few models... But nothing like I had in 8th/ 9th.

And as for 11th, I imagine I'll be spending less. Big boxes (like the recent Eldar Corsairs big box) have now hit prices out of my range, so they're off the table. I probably won't buy any 11th dexes until I know what they're doing with Drukhari.

And I still haven't received an indication from GW about my most important question: will Crusade survive in 11th.

 Da Boss wrote:

I disagree that newer games are always better though, I think games often peak and then deteriorate over time if they keep fiddling with them.

Stagnation is its own form of deterioration though there are definitely editions that miss the mark. I do agree that both have their own concerns but what I often find is that new editions are often overall a positive change, but they might not be what's really needed. Like overall I liked 8th for its time more than 9th, but I think a lot of the changes in 9th were improvements to the point where I don't feel like sticking to 8th was the right choice either. I think part of it is at the core, the experience isn't so radically different that it REALLY matters but I think there's enough competition in the industry now that if you're not improving, something else will.

There is something to say about building collections resistent to change and edition churn. building up to just a 2k list may seem like a good idea, but building up so you can change if need be is important

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
There is something to say about building collections resistent to change and edition churn. building up to just a 2k list may seem like a good idea, but building up so you can change if need be is important

I'd say this has sort of been the weakness of 10th's detachment rules.

"Balance" has got better, so there are far fewer trap units than back in the day. In 10th I'd argue that if you built a soft-highlander list with no more of 2 of any datasheet and a general mix of units then with most factions you'll probably "fine" at a casual level. Even frankly in a tournament unless you are aiming to win the whole thing.

But... at least 2/3rds or more of detachments are clearly about skewed lists. Only having 2-3 playable detachments that "work" with such a collection isn't all that fun.
I can't work out if GW's new system of detachments is sort of doubling down on that invitation towards skew. On the one hand its nice to know those detachments are (presumably) sticking around for another 3 years. But equally you have to know the risks of building a really skewed army that could be either nerfed, or just made illegal down the line.

The weird thing about 10th is all the skew detachments have been largely just bad. A few do enough to be a problem but for the most part the generic toolboxes have rules the edition. I think that's overall been a positive and I'm really glad that the detachment systems don't have build requirements behind them as much as carrots but its super weird how poorly the skew designs actually worked.

I played 2nd, and for me I felt a part of that universe. I felt like I was in the battle. Then life happened and I was out for a while, lost all my rules and minis. Later tried to get back in and grabbed a new box of the rules. Imagine my surprise when it wasn't the same game I had played before. This new boxed set came with a crashed ship, marines vs tyranids, and new rules that changed how I could equip my troops.
I always thought that was 3rd edition, but recently I was searching for resources for different editions and saw that it was 4th edition that came with the wrecked ship...
At any rate, whatever edition it was had completely lost that feel I had before. It was more like that feeling when I play chess, nothing more than moving pieces on a checkered board and now, nearly my entire collection is now legends and I've always hated "counts-as", at least for my own army.
So I guess my advice, try the new edition. Try it a few times. If it feels it's lost something, stick with the edition you love and find others willing to play that edition. If the feeling's still there, enjoy the new edition and adapt your collection.

I feel like there is also an issue with a disconnect from younger more modern gamers andolder gamers. middle millenials and younger want a game with a tight ruleset where you can face off and prove her is better. competition is a way to socializing.
Older gamers really see it was just a way to kill time and play a game.

 LunarSol wrote:
The weird thing about 10th is all the skew detachments have been largely just bad. A few do enough to be a problem but for the most part the generic toolboxes have rules the edition. I think that's overall been a positive and I'm really glad that the detachment systems don't have build requirements behind them as much as carrots but its super weird how poorly the skew designs actually worked.

I guess I'm a bit out of the competitive meta - so maybe this is true.
My reading is that while you occasionally see a list dominate, it often does so for all of 3-4 weeks. Rather than say 9-12~ months (8th) or 3-4 years (earlier). (I guess you could argue Eldar for the first 6 months or something of 10th.)
(This is also why 10th is probably the most "balanced" edition. There's such a range of placing lists and factions.)

In some respects I wonder if this trend towards "generic toolbox" is a result of the rules churn. GW is so quick (relatively) with buffs/nerf/change for change's sake - that investing and playing/learning a skew isn't worth it if you are competitive.

I'm convinced for instance that the CWE all Jetbike detachment has competitive legs. But I'm never going to spend the money and time buying, building, painting and then practicing with it to find out. And without someone blazing the way, why would competitive players try?

But then you saw things like the Chaos Cult detachment which were widely mocked on release. Then some people clearly decided "we are going to make this work". And eventually it did to the point of GW nerfing it.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I feel like there is also an issue with a disconnect from younger more modern gamers andolder gamers. middle millenials and younger want a game with a tight ruleset where you can face off and prove her is better. competition is a way to socializing.
Older gamers really see it was just a way to kill time and play a game.

I think that's broadly true, though I think you characterise the older gamers in a bit of a dismissive way. I spend a lot of time thinking about my games, painting miniatures for them, making custom scenery, thinking through scenarios - they're not a trivial investment for me in terms of time, love and attention. As I've gotten older, honestly this hobby has become more and more important to me.

But when I play, I try to win, sure, but I don't really care if I do or I don't. I like a close game, and I like some interesting tactical decisions. But I am totally disinterested in list building - I want to play with my collection and I want to only use units I think are cool and fit the scenario I have in mind. I don't want weird skew armies unless that's the entire point of the scenario. I want a system that has enough simulation in it to give me the feeling of something that makes sense - what "would" happen. I want the system to be light enough that I can teach it to non-gamers and get them up and running.

And given all the effort I'm putting into all these different aspects, if a rules system asks me to compromise on any of it, I'll just look for another system. Like if your rule system requires boring terrain set ups because it doesn't balance shooting any other way, I'm looking for something else. If it doesn't let me play with models from my collection, I'm going to look for something that will. If it doesn't provide interesting, relatively simulationist gameplay and I can't teach it to my friends easily, it's a non-starter.

I'd be up for a tournament, as a way to hang out, play a bunch of games, see a bunch of armies and meet new people. I'll even happily play a competitive game with someone in their preferred system if they seem cool. But what I'm really dreaming about is that curated experience where everything is just right, because I've sorted it all out myself.

Tyel wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
The weird thing about 10th is all the skew detachments have been largely just bad. A few do enough to be a problem but for the most part the generic toolboxes have rules the edition. I think that's overall been a positive and I'm really glad that the detachment systems don't have build requirements behind them as much as carrots but its super weird how poorly the skew designs actually worked.

I guess I'm a bit out of the competitive meta - so maybe this is true.
My reading is that while you occasionally see a list dominate, it often does so for all of 3-4 weeks. Rather than say 9-12~ months (8th) or 3-4 years (earlier). (I guess you could argue Eldar for the first 6 months or something of 10th.)
(This is also why 10th is probably the most "balanced" edition. There's such a range of placing lists and factions.)

In some respects I wonder if this trend towards "generic toolbox" is a result of the rules churn. GW is so quick (relatively) with buffs/nerf/change for change's sake - that investing and playing/learning a skew isn't worth it if you are competitive.

I'm convinced for instance that the CWE all Jetbike detachment has competitive legs. But I'm never going to spend the money and time buying, building, painting and then practicing with it to find out. And without someone blazing the way, why would competitive players try?

But then you saw things like the Chaos Cult detachment which were widely mocked on release. Then some people clearly decided "we are going to make this work". And eventually it did to the point of GW nerfing it.

I think some of it is and I am loathe to say this... honestly just good game design. I'm am very positive of 10th where I have traditionally at best tolerated 40k and a lot of that is GW making units that have real roles and win games via things other than points efficiency. It is useful to have units that deploy upfield for the purpose of controlling space. It is useful to have units that move in and out of reserves to grab objectives. Units do things and that has created a game where you really don't benefit from taking the maximum number of the most efficient thing nearly as much as 40k has traditionally rewarded.

In truth, a lot of the more skew focused detachments are fine for most players. Where they fall down is in tournament play where some gap in their toolset might cost you a game and where that's just not acceptable. For example, while Gladius is definitely power, a lot of why its ubiquitous is just because it has a way to advance and charge or fall back and shoot/action on command that can counter a lot of scenarios to turn a game around. A lot of the more focused detachments either have gaps like this or restrict them to specific units that means if you NEED some non-combat unit to use it you're out of luck.

It'll be interesting to see how the new detachments work. It's possible they allow for a sort of "core" 2 pointer and then a more focused single that gets around this. It's certainly got potential, but its entirely up to the execution.

I've been playing since early 7th, so this will be the fourth edition change I've experienced. I've also been taking a hiatus from 40k since late 2024 so I'm a little out of touch these days, but I do plan to come back once 11th drops. Having experienced edition changes, best thing I can say is (to quote the Hitchhiker's Guide), DON'T PANIC. The game will still be recognizably 40k, and most of your models will still be perfectly fine even if the meta changes so that some are no longer as powerful. I for one have a very deep bench of Dark Angels models to draw from so maybe I shouldn't talk, but honestly even if you only have 3k worth of models you should still be able to field a workable list in a new edition, if not an overly competitive one. As far as avoiding crap rules, this is where having multiple armies can actually help. I currently have four, and they are somewhat varied in style (Dark Angels, Imperial Knights, Astra Militarum, and Leagues of Votann). With that many armies, chances are slim that all of them will have crap rules when a new edition hits. Now, having four armies or more is not an option for some, so sometimes you will just have to roll with the punches, but remember that we live in a time where GW publishes Balance Dataslates every quarter so what is underperforming today could be the new hotness in a few months. And speaking of competitiveness, most players aren't going to be playing a ton of tournaments and so shouldn't worry too much about "the meta". Just put together some awesome models and go roll some dice with your buddies.

I will echo others' advice about being careful about buying stuff right now, although if you're newer go ahead and buy models you think you'll enjoy painting. However, do some research and try not to buy anything that's older, as those models will be first against the wall when the edition change comes. It does suck if your favorite models get sunsetted, but that's one of the ways GW tries to combat datasheet bloat. If this happens to models you have, see if you can proxy them as something else; don't just immediately sell them. Reasonable proxies should never be a problem unless you have a fairly anal group (or tournament organizer). Plus, if you're just playing casually and the models get Legends rules, they are still playable as what they are.

Tyel wrote:
In some respects I wonder if this trend towards "generic toolbox" is a result of the rules churn. GW is so quick (relatively) with buffs/nerf/change for change's sake - that investing and playing/learning a skew isn't worth it if you are competitive.

I'm convinced for instance that the CWE all Jetbike detachment has competitive legs. But I'm never going to spend the money and time buying, building, painting and then practicing with it to find out. And without someone blazing the way, why would competitive players try?

Top competitive players either have teams or complete collections with 3 of everything. If something was overpowered, it usually became the standard within a week or so. Sometimes an overpowered thing was something everyone already head from previous editions, like the DG demon engines. Then it's everywhere immediately.

The reason why wide toolbox lists tend to win out is because the game needs much more stuff to win reliably. Scouts and infiltrators are mandatory, otherwise might face a 15+ VP handicap on your very first turn. You need stuff that can reliably enter your opponent's backfield, and stuff that prevents your opponent from doing so. You need something that kills tanks and monsters, something that kills terminators, something that can kill a horde unit off an objective.
Few niche archetypes manage to cover all those bases efficiently, so it's usually better to bring a list that can do everything and a detachment that benefits every/most units in it.