Perhaps that's a provocative thread question, especially coming from a person who hasn't played the current edition. In fact I haven't played an edition since 5th, where my friends and I split off with our own rules and continue to do so. But the thread on 'How is 10th Going For You' got me thinking: have players hit a wall with the 10th Edition 40K release?
I've tried to keep up with rule changes over the years to see what might be good or bad, adding or changing our rules with new ideas and what people think are good ideas for improvement. But what I've noticed lately is that there seems to be a gradual general dampening of enthusiasm for the 40K game. There are certainly exceptions of course, but the most obvious thing to me is the infrequency of posts on this very forum. Is this edition churn, oversaturation of product, a poor evaluation of Games Workshop's business practices or something else entirely?
On one hand the game overall appears to be very successful and GW is robust with profit. It just seems that something intrinsic over time has waned...punctuated by this last edition. Even though I no longer play the current rules and enjoy our version immensely, it would be a genuine shame to see 40K move inexorably toward its heat death. Is this premise simply incorrect? If not, what can be done to fix it?
Depending on where you look will get you different results.
Dakka is a largely negative place whether it's justified or not so you're going to see negative opinions.
If you go somewhere with more positive opinions you'll see the opposite.
The Internet is the worst place to gauge opinion because its largely polarised, hyperbole or intended to get a rise out of other people.
I have played 10th and have enjoyed it far more than 9th and 8th. I enjoyed 7th because I had Daemonkin but the edition was not good.
You're not the only one to notice this. I think theres a lot of people taking a passive "watch and see" approach, and the fact that as of tomorrow only 2 codexes have released probably has something to do with it - basically the 40k release schedule is not in full swing yet and theres been a lull in activity that has dampened the hype.
I do think that the changes to listbuilding have been a factor in all this though, theres basically been a complete removal of any limitations as to how you build your list outside of the total points of the army, which is governed only by the model count of the units you select and not their wargear. There is not a lot of "meat" there to keep people engaged. Its long been my POV that one of the things that keeps peoples attention on the game when they aren't at the table is the constant fiddling and tweaking with lists to try to squeeze the most out of it and optimize it. Its almost like a solo-game in and of itself. The new list-building system is too open and unrestrictive to create the tension needed for that to happen, and even I (someone who is a fan of the removal of wargear points) find listbuilding unsatisfying now. I think for that reason you're probably seeing less discussion and interaction because people are not being kept engaged. It doesn't mean they've stopped playing or wandered away (and it certainly hasn't drained the soul from the game), just that they aren't "hooked" like they were before.
I'm a relative newbie, I got into 40k around the launch of 9th and didn't really start playing frequently until last year. I've been playing 3rd ed, heresy, and 10th, and 10th just drains my soul to play, especially loyalist marines. It just... doesn't feel like 40k to maybe. All the good of legacy systems and ideas have been drained, and it's left either the worst parts (Full turn/by turn with all the things to make it quicker sucked out), or mangled and botched ideas pulled from other systems (I.e. the AoS point system).
The best way I can frame it, is that GW has finally after 3 editions of trying, made the most sanitized, watered down version of 40k I've experienced in my short history with the game, and that saddens me.
Worst part is, that it'll work. It's not new player's fault, but it's hard to complain when you've never experienced anything prior. Sure, a lot of people started in 9th, but those that did, didn't actually get to play until at minimum, a year and a half into the edition, if not longer, and when they did finally get to play, it was such a complicated mess that only a handful persevered to properly get into the tabletop. Then they hear a new, streamlined edition is coming, and hop on, as their main complaint as someone with only their toes in the game has been addressed. So many players, if you didn't start in 8th or earlier, you have limited comprehension of how 40k was prior to 10th.
At the end of the day, i'm glad they have a game to get into and play, but it'll sadden me, that they'll never know 40k how it was, only as it is now, in it's stripped-back sanitized form.
For me absolutely. I have played this game off and on since 1997 and it has never felt as a lifeless as it has now.
I don't know whether it's them streamlining the rules to appeal to the competitive magic type players or them trying to poorly imitate warmachine or what but everything about this edition feels completely off as a war game. While it can be argued that 40K has not felt like a war game in years The point remains that they seem to be moving further and further away and into something that I can't even describe what it feels like
They don't reward tactics and strategy, there are weird advanced use cases of all the rules which you don't know unless you devote yourself to system mastery, which the average player is not going to know but the competitive player is going to, everything is more bloated than ever before with just the number of units and factions. The rules themselves are good but something about them just feel off and I don't know what it is.
It feels like it's in this nebulous place where it's trying to be unique but the only people who it's appealing to are the people that don't actually care about the game and only play it because it's popular.
I think the loud minority of people complaining about 9th being complicated have had a full monkeys paw moment drop on them with how 10th currently is. GW have managed to make the game a lot more bland and surface level simpler, while still having tons of awkwardness and bad complexity infecting every step of the rules and indexes. I have yet to see an Aeldari player who actually likes the index; sure it's strong, but it lacks flavour when compared to the brilliant 9th dex. Marine players, despite being the main source of complexity complaints in 9th are now bemoaning and wishing they had their supplements back, with a few of them also now finding their collections are becoming legends'd, or how the new points system feths you over if you want to run Bladeguard out of a transport. You can see instances of this happening all throughout the game, WE and Guard being the best examples for how little time they got to use their codexes in 9th combined with how bland and gak their indexes are. Only a handful of factions like arguably CSM managed to get an index that at least has some semblance of variety and internal balance, and squeezing any potential drop of flavour they can.
A lot of the local talk about the game is not that it's bad, or that people are not enjoying it; because they are for the most part, but a lot of that is the social aspect of the game and how easy it is to find a game and community surrounding it, which is something many other game systems seem to actively try and dissuade (shoutout to the KoW community for just staying inside their bubble and refusing to make an open and accessibly community for new players). But a really common view is that even though people may be enjoying 10th, in almost every instance, or the really big important ones, they preferred how 9th did things. Because make no mistake, despite what loud complaining dads on facebook said 9th was the most successful edition 40k has ever had. It had the most people playing it. It did a lot of things right. And to just throw everything out and start over again entirely, rather than building on and fixing its flaws, I think has led to some severe whiplash.
I was talking to someone on discord last week. They were someone who joined in the sort of tail end of 9th and confessed they felt really overwhelmed by it and had been looking forward to 10th initially. But they're now finding themselves just... a little bit bored of the game because indexhammer is for the most part truly the anathema to making a fun and varied army. Plus the mission system as-is creates an even starker need for specific cookie-cutter builds even more than previous editions as it prioritizes and rewards cheap throwaway mobile scorers to the exclusion of everything else. It's not like 9th were you could make a slower army and take specific generic or faction secondaries that weren't solely based on speed and capturing points. It meant you could experiment and do weird fun kooky armies that could still have the possibility of scoring (not optimally, but they still had the capability). In 10th if you do anything that strays outside of the one optimal build for your army, even in a casual environment, you will be scoring low on your secondaries almost constantly, which is made even worse by the random card nature of them. It is an exceptionally feelsbad experience for people. There's a difference between drawing dud unachievable cards for 2 turns in a row and scoring 0 secondaries, and picking Retrieve Battlefield Data in 9th as the best of a bad set of choices and maybe only scoring 4 or 8 points from it over the game, but that's still points you were able to get.
It's also funny to assign blame to 10th's issues onto comp players when 0 comp players I know are actually happy with how the game is currently.
It's not about comp players it's GW's desire to chase that tail with knee jerk balance reactions to gts and emphasizing that style. Again having played the game off and on for over 20 years 9th edition and especially 10th edition definitely feel like they are trying to reach out to the competitive gamer first and screw everybody else. And having people like ITC or that guy who ran Nova being part of their design philosophy was a huge mistake
But you are correct, it's like they streamlined the rules but kept all the poor interactions and half-assed the indexes
9th wasn't bad either at its core, the problem was ridiculous bloat with stratagems. Which could have easily been solved by simply making picking stratagems a sort of deck building equivalent, that is you would pick a handful for your army and that's all you had access to.
Everyone steps in at a different point where the soul is codified, so it will inevitably die when your personal image no longer lines up with the current game.
Which is basically the gaming equivalent of old man yells at kids to get off lawn - society evolves and your ingrained image of what it should be no longer aligns and you are no longer the IT generation.
I've watched 40k evolve from 1992, and the constant is it will change and people will no longer vibe myself included.
For me it started in 5th ed with Ward's superheroing of the fluff and now we have a game where everything must rotate around specific characters and nothing happens without them being involved, making a vast universe tiny.
The game went from being presented as a historic landscape of events and people involved that you could create in, where in effect the setting WAS the protagonist, to herohammer (literally) where it's no longer a setting, it's simply the backdrop to the actions of a bunch of protagonists.
Who by their very protagonism put paid to one of the central tenets of the original game - to be a man is to be uncounted amongst billions and that no matter what happens, you won't be missed.
Unless you're suffering from protagonism, in which the universe can't continue without you being dragged along with it, rather than it just existing and happening whether you survive or not.
Wayniac wrote: For me absolutely. I have played this game off and on since 1997 and it has never felt as a lifeless as it has now.
I don't know whether it's them streamlining the rules to appeal to the competitive magic type players or them trying to poorly imitate warmachine or what but everything about this edition feels completely off as a war game. While it can be argued that 40K has not felt like a war game in years The point remains that they seem to be moving further and further away and into something that I can't even describe what it feels like
They don't reward tactics and strategy, there are weird advanced use cases of all the rules which you don't know unless you devote yourself to system mastery, which the average player is not going to know but the competitive player is going to, everything is more bloated than ever before with just the number of units and factions. The rules themselves are good but something about them just feel off and I don't know what it is.
It feels like it's in this nebulous place where it's trying to be unique but the only people who it's appealing to are the people that don't actually care about the game and only play it because it's popular.
Wait, you think 10th Edition appeals to Magic players?
As someone who has far too many Commander decks, hell no it doesn't.
A few older players at my new store quit w40k or moved to other games, because the game was too complicated and too "gamey" for them. Not sure if this counts as lack of soul.
The game is what it is. I don't think it is much different then it was in 9th, it just feels, and this time it is a me feeling, very corporation driven. I have no problem with companies wanting to make money first. Great, they make money, they will make more games to play. OP eldar? meh, that is the norm every edition. But telling people X is going to be fun to play , the removing it. Is a bad move . Removing assault marines, scouts, after giving them good rules, and then re releasing primaris version of the same models , but with load outs different enough so people can't use their bikes, assaults, scouts that is a middle finger to the people that bought GW models.
9th wasn't bad either at its core, the problem was ridiculous bloat with stratagems. Which could have easily been solved by simply making picking stratagems a sort of deck building equivalent, that is you would pick a handful for your army and that's all you had access to.
Adding an entire new pregame step where you would just do what everyone did anyway (only use a handful of strats) is uh, a decision they could have done I guess. I think you're just kind of exposing yourself as someone who didn't play very much of 8th or 9th.
I played a good amount and the shear number of stratagems was part of the problem. But what they did in 10th didn't really fix it Because it did the opposite problem and took away a lot of the flavorful ones
Wayniac wrote: I played a good amount and the shear number of stratagems was part of the problem. But what they did in 10th didn't really fix it Because it did the opposite problem and took away a lot of the flavorful ones
Basically this.
9th had issues but you could have fixed them without turning characters into glorified sergeants, obliterating wargear and options, removing all choice and flavour from psychic powers, removing points etc., etc.
It's like GW didn't stop at throwing the baby out with the bathwater and started ripping out the entire bathroom to throw out as well.
Perhaps stratagems weren't a good place to put the flavor in the first place.
Perhaps instead you could have core rules deep enough to anchor faction differences in.
AV14 (core rule) and an Ordnance (core rule) Large Blast (core rule) made a Leman Russ feel unique in 4th edition.
Something like a Predator was less unique (an autocannon was a basic Imperial weapon, heavy bolters were basic Imperial weapons, AV 13 was kinda okay).
In 8th, the Leman Russ became almost indistinguishable from a predator:
- AV anything disappeared. Predator was T7 W11, Russ was T8 W12, same save. Considering anything could wound anything and the new wound chart meant that the only weapon categories effected were Str 4, str8, and str 14 and 15, this felt almost completely different.
- Predator autocannon became 2d3 shots, battle cannon became d6. Pred cannon could have been 4 or 2, doesn't matter. Ordnance had disappeared. Blast had disappeared.
The faction differences between these tanks and identity of one faction as "the tank faction" by comparison dried up, and has been hamfistedly rebuilt in myriad different ways ever since.
Every iteration of the rules since GW kiddie-pooled them has been trying to figure out how to restore identity and depth to the game. But without the core rules complexity to anchor those things in, it just becomes this mess we have now.
7th was awful and bloated. The solution was to fix 7th's problems, not burn it all down and say "job done"
1/ The first six months of any edition is rough for me, because it's the obligatory Marine Parade. This time around it's worse, because Horus Heresy is getting a lot of support, and it's pretty much wall to wall Marines... And then there's Legions Imperialis, which is Heresy era... So Marines.
2/ Since 9th, for me EVERYTHING has been Crusade. So the idea that everyone has playable armies right now is sort of a half-truth for Crusaders, because the bespoke dex content was the best, and there are some issues with porting the contents over. So go Tyranids... And of course, Marines.
3/ On the plus side: Crusade content for Marines has improved tremendously, while Crusade content for 'Nids maintained 9th's quality. It is true that they could have improved it- many of us think that an integrated planet-generation/ implementation would be an improvement... But 'Nids stayed the same, with only 3 planet types.
4/ Kill Team has been slow lately. I need tomorrow's Kill Team preview to recharge me. I incorporate Kill Team into 40k Campaigns, so for me, they're two wheels on the same cart.
I love a lot of the changes, but the inability to give units equipment that's paid for in points is really bad to me.
I'd remove strategems period and return it to weapon options costing points. Especially for characters. If I want to make my 60 point Cannoness a 150 point killer then let me. I'd also reverse a lot of these point reductions. I don't want 200 point Paragon Warsuits, I want 300 point Paragon Warsuits that are worth that price.
See, I'm not entirely opposed to strategems, I just have never cared for the implementation and how they have become basically the "core" mechanic of the game. IMO, strategems should be more like a feat from warmachine, maybe not once per game, but definitely not once per turn either. The focus on the game should be primarily on outmaneuvering and outattriting your opponent on the tabletop, not about managing an imaginary resource which you will use often to improve your units performance. Alternatively strategems should be like a once per game ability unique to a given datasheet that ties in directly with that units fluff kind of thing, and you can use a total of like 3 over the course of a game. I want the game to be focused on moving and shooting and fighting based on a units built in stats and rules, and not an exercise in figuring out the wombocombos and most optimal mechanical interactions that can be gained by stacking layers of rules on top of each other.
chaos0xomega wrote: See, I'm not entirely opposed to strategems, I just have never cared for the implementation and how they have become basically the "core" mechanic of the game. IMO, strategems should be more like a feat from warmachine, maybe not once per game, but definitely not once per turn either. The focus on the game should be primarily on outmaneuvering and outattriting your opponent on the tabletop, not about managing an imaginary resource which you will use often to improve your units performance. Alternatively strategems should be like a once per game ability unique to a given datasheet that ties in directly with that units fluff kind of thing, and you can use a total of like 3 over the course of a game. I want the game to be focused on moving and shooting and fighting based on a units built in stats and rules, and not an exercise in figuring out the wombocombos and most optimal mechanical interactions that can be gained by stacking layers of rules on top of each other.
Maybe just take a leaf out of AoS's book and make them Command abilities on Characters?
This would also have created an opportunity for problematic auras to either be removed or (if made into Command abilities) to at least have an activation cost, rather than being always-on.
That would have actually been a great idea. They could have kept the aura abilities but it costs a command point or something. Basically like how you had abilities you could activate in Dawn of war 2 And they had a cool down before you could use them again.
In this case it would be like once a turn or something and cost a CP. That would have probably been the perfect way to address it.
The changes they made to characters are probably one of the worst things about 10th. They missed like the most important part of characters being able to join units by making it a requirement so that they're pretty much useless without a unit so it's the opposite problem
Ehhhhh. Okay. So there are things I do like about 10th. So I don't want to come across as thinking it's without merit. I like that there are fewer strats than before, I like how the game plays on the table, and I think some of the new detachments do a great job of being fluffy and changing how units behave.
But the stuff I used to think of as "the soul" of the game is largely the stuff that isn't around any more. Like, I hated the exact implementation of warlord traits and relics, but I loved being able to give characters more personality through quirky abilities or wargear options. Even pre-warlord traits, just being able to take an unorthodox (but still viable) build for a character could make them feel more "yours". Same with squads to a lesser extent. Once upon a time, giving a squad of kabalite warriors a power sword sybarite was an inefficient-but-viable build thanks to Furious Charge and their initiative.
10th has really gone out of its way to take away most of that juicy customization. There have always been more or less efficient unit builds in 40k, but 10th's list building system just makes taking or not taking some wargear a complete non-choice. And that's assuming said choice exists at all. The dark eldar armory that used to let you tell whole stories through your wargear options has now been reduced down to whether you take the good pistol or the bad pistol on 2 of your HQs.
So the "your dudes" aspect that I used to really like just isn't there at the moment. Even the detachment rules are kind of a factor here. Even though I vastly prefer the new detachment rules over their 9th edition counterparts, being able to mix and match a couple of army traits *did* potentially give you a sense of customizing your army to fit your fluff.
I think the missions might kind of be a factor here as well. Even though they're *slightly* less busy than the 9th edition missions, the 10th edition missions still have a ton going on. From 5th-8th, I could look at the mission and instantly come up with the skeleton of a narrative for why my forces were present. My opponents and I used to take a minute before the game and go,
"Oh, it's the relic. Clearly that data slate has the location of the planetary governer's bolt hole, and we're trying to rescue him/parade his corpse through the streets respectively."
9th and 10th missions just have too much going on to get that same feeling. Although Crusade is a bit better about this.
And on top of the rest, I do feel like the playstyles of my main armies have kind of been watered down. There was something very rock & roll about speeding a raider across the table, then charging out of it with an archon who had taken an extra hit of his drug dispenser (and thus had to roll for overdosing). There was something satisfying about opting to flat out or jink to give your wave serpents a save at the cost of their next turn's offense and then seeing that choice pay off. My space elves just don't feel fast or especially mobile any more. Maybe it's just because a lot of our speed-as-defense options are limited to specific units or come at the cost of CP (thus immediately dampening any feel-goods using it might have provided.)
tldr; I like tasty wargear options. Give 'em back! Grr!
I didn't play 9th, (I fell off cuz of Covid making in-person games undesirable, and didn't come back in at the tail end just because I'd been out for a while,) but I played a lot of 8th, 7th, 6th, and 5th edition, starting at the earlypoint of 6th just after Assault on Black Reach came out.
I enjoy the new edition quite a bit. I don't find it to be soulless at all - it's better than every edition I've played except 5th, which was such a different game that it's hard to compare.
6th edition sometimes felt soulless because of how much relied on luck and deathstars. Psykers could be brutally powerful or utterly pointless depending on whether you rolled a good power or not - leading to the issue of 'I showed up at the battlefield and ended up forgetting how to be useful'. Diviniation ended up being the favorite choice for every army because Prescience, the auto-pick option, was so much better than any of the alternatives. There were many ""choices"", but more often than not, only one choice was actually any good, and the others were all traps that you wanted to avoid at all costs.
7th edition felt soulless, particularly at the end. Sure, there were many, MANY more options, all of which had fluff excuses, but the ultimate result was that play revolved around ignoring everything except numerical optimization and cheese. Taking twelve MSU units of marines with no guns so that you could get twelve free Razorbacks was the very definition of soulless, meaningless gameplay to me. Indestructible deathstars were not fun to play against, and barely better to play with. 'Look Out Sir' was a hilariously bad rule.
Eighth edition too felt soulless, because Blast weapons were stripped out without any sort of real replacement, characters couldn't join squads, armor facing was gone. The detachment system was *awful*, leading to The Loyal 32 being spammed in every board because CP generation was critical and nobody cared how it got done. Power creep was a massive issue, too, with every new codex having huge balance issues. At every point in the edition, I recall there being an utterly dominant army that was almost impossible to beat unless you brought a hard counter that left you vulnerable to everyone else. (Remember when Iron Hands had to get immediately nerfed into the dirt because their supplement was just blatantly overpowered in every way?)
10th edition feels *much* better to me. Sure, there's currently fewer options because the codices aren't out yet, but the way it's built aligns with the fluff. Characters attaching to squads is back, but deathstars are kept out in the cold. Blast weapons are better, feeling mechanically distinct from other random-shot weapons. The rules are streamlined in ways that are easy to follow, and USRs are back.
Is it perfect? No. I wish there were more customization options, and I'm okay with *some* wargear choices being free, but wish others still had points values. However, the balance is good, the game is fun to play, and it's way less common to field an army that feels like it's breaking the fluff for a mechanical advantage.
EDIT:
In summation, my two favorite editions are 5th and 10th. Both offer wildly different experiences. 5th is (for me) the best of the "Chaos era", where RNG and jank rules were king, armor facings and templates caused both major problems and major fun. 10th is the best of the "Modern era", where balance is allegedly taken seriously.
(And to be clear, I've enjoyed every edition I've played. I've never 'hated the game', if it ever came to that, I would have just stopped playing.)
chaos0xomega wrote: Its long been my POV that one of the things that keeps peoples attention on the game when they aren't at the table is the constant fiddling and tweaking with lists to try to squeeze the most out of it and optimize it. Its almost like a solo-game in and of itself. The new list-building system is too open and unrestrictive to create the tension needed for that to happen, and even I (someone who is a fan of the removal of wargear points) find listbuilding unsatisfying now.
100%, listbuilding was a great solo activity and point of engagement. It's pretty lifeless now.
chaos0xomega wrote: Its long been my POV that one of the things that keeps peoples attention on the game when they aren't at the table is the constant fiddling and tweaking with lists to try to squeeze the most out of it and optimize it. Its almost like a solo-game in and of itself. The new list-building system is too open and unrestrictive to create the tension needed for that to happen, and even I (someone who is a fan of the removal of wargear points) find listbuilding unsatisfying now.
100%, listbuilding was a great solo activity and point of engagement. It's pretty lifeless now.
This is one thing I think could be improved on - If running formations gave extremely small benefits, it could encourage more listbuilding optimization.
The issue with 7th edition was that Formations offered massive, overpowering advantages that overwhelmed the game. The advantage from taking a formation became far more meaningful than the units contained within.
If you could get a small but noteworthy benefit - Like, IDK, getting to use one specific stratagem for free once per game if you follow certain listbuilding constraints - that would, I think, make things more interesting and engaging. (Like, 'If you take three squads of Terminators and at least two Terminator characters, and set them all up in strategic reserves, you may use Rapid Ingress without spending CP once per game on one of these units, even if you've already used it on a different unit that turn' or something.)
Though, in my experience, a lot of listbuilding time was spent just entering options and doing the math. It could be engaging to try and find places to shave points and optimize, but too much of that came from wargear having janky and unbalanced point values.
I still loved the idea of formations in seventh edition as a sort of shopping list or ideas for things to expand upon. The idea of having one thing and then singing Well if I got another one and this other unit I could run them all together and get a small bonus was a good thing. The problem was making some of them absolutely ridiculous and most of them pure garbage
I don't think that anything about the rules of 10e are killing the playerbase, even though I don't like them much. Lots of people quit in 6th/7th because of the frantic pace of bloat, how the wild fluctuations in the effectiveness of various units between releases led to an overstressed supply chain and things being out of stock constantly, and how poor mission design rendered units/builds/entire armies pointless. Lots of people came back or started in 8th because of the promise that the change in leadership and the change in design philosophy would correct those issues. People are starting to bleed away again because nothing has actually changed, and everything that was wrong with 6th/7th is still wrong, at least from a business model/player experience standpoint.
AnomanderRake wrote: I don't think that anything about the rules of 10e are killing the playerbase, even though I don't like them much. Lots of people quit in 6th/7th because of the frantic pace of bloat, how the wild fluctuations in the effectiveness of various units between releases led to an overstressed supply chain and things being out of stock constantly, and how poor mission design rendered units/builds/entire armies pointless. Lots of people came back or started in 8th because of the promise that the change in leadership and the change in design philosophy would correct those issues. People are starting to bleed away again because nothing has actually changed, and everything that was wrong with 6th/7th is still wrong, at least from a business model/player experience standpoint.
I disagree - While there are still many problems, and price bloat is worse than ever, some things have definitely changed.
Power creep exists, some, but the balance is much better, and the efforts to keep the game balanced are considerably more deft and well done. There's no more 'Here's a new rulebook this month that has a formation that will utterly wreck the game balance but you need to go buy six more razorbacks if you want to win'.
In general, there's been a move away from new rules being a selling point all on their own. Yes, supplements still exist, but 'Buy this campaign book so you can get one new overpowered relic' is gone, and that's the problem that utterly dominated 7th edition and sent it crashing and burning into the ground.
I'm hugely thankful there are fewer stratagems. The detachments thing is okay but they need to make an Imperial Agents one or an Imperial Navy one or something. The unit abilities are interesting a fair amount of the time. I haven't played the standard missions yet, only crusade.
Tittliewinks22 wrote: 7ths core was/is really good. There were some mistakes that should have been corrected in 8th instead of a complete rework of the core.
Most of the gripes of 7th are bloat/power creep related, which has been the same gripes every edition since end of 5th...
I'd partly agree, but ultimately I think the issue with 7th edition was that every codex was fundamentally unbalanced in some way or another and the base rules created too much disparity. Even if you kept the core of 7th, it was pretty much necessary to reboot every single codex from the ground up, and the design philosophy behind those codices needed to change heavily.
That said, I'm glad Horus Heresy still exists for folks who like the rules.
But what I've noticed lately is that there seems to be a gradual general dampening of enthusiasm for the 40K game. There are certainly exceptions of course, but the most obvious thing to me is the infrequency of posts on this very forum.
Ita more of a case of people just don't post on internet forums much anymore. 'Forums' for the most part are a past trend, most of the chatter these days in on social media etc.
Is this edition churn, oversaturation of product, a poor evaluation of Games Workshop's business practices or something else entirely?
Just the usual if you ask me. None of those thinhlgd are new issues. There's always corners of misery, frustration, fatigue and joy. People might walk away forever or just for a whike, take a break or play sonething else for a while. 40k will be there when they get back.
On one hand the game overall appears to be very successful and GW is robust with profit. It just seems that something intrinsic over time has waned...punctuated by this last edition. Even though I no longer play the current rules and enjoy our version immensely, it would be a genuine shame to see 40K move inexorably toward its heat death. Is this premise simply incorrect? If not, what can be done to fix it?
I doubt it's correct. Just part of the 'doom cycle'.
Its nothing we've not seen before. People said this when kirby was in - 'the death spiral is imminent if gw doesn't change course'. Arguably they were not wrong - there was that one year where the only thing keeping their backside out of the fire was the runaway success of the betrayal at calth boxset. Then roundtree took the helm and gw turned a corner. Gw will in all likelihood still be a thing in 20 years with a game that is totally different from the modern game and unrecognisable from its origins. If things start to turn bad, out of no other reason than self interest, they will right themselves. That the game is different now to previous incarnations is a thing. Ira neither good nor bad, tastes simply change. game design is different to what it was 10 or 20 or more years ago too.
To me, the "soul" of 40K has alvays been its setting, lore and miniatures. So for me, the soul is still healthy.. As for the 40K game, it has never felt very satisfactory to me, my best memories of playing games in the 40K setting involve games such as Space Hulk, Epic, Advanced Space Crusade, and in more recent times, KillTeam. Still remains to be seen if the upcoming Legion Imperialis game will live up to its Epic roots..
I wish GW just stuck to making the models their priority, sold all their books for all the previous editions in addition to just the current one, and would let players decide how they want to have fun with their toy soldiers. It is obvious by now they haven't got a clue on how to make a 28mm game in the scale of 40K work, whereas they have a history of making decent games for smaller or much larger conficts just fine..
Active player from 3rd to 7th. Kept bying some codices over the editions (The line must be unbroken!) and finally returned in the end tail of 9th.
I don't recognise the game I returned to. At first I thought that it just was an effect of my personal life, ”growing up” (lol, NEVER!) with marriage and a kid. But opening up my army cases and bitz boxes gave me that same wonderful feeling of seeing really old friends. So the building and painting part of the hobby is the same as it always was.
But the game... I do not dare to say all to much about the general rules set as I have yet to play any 10th myself, but the indexes... just why. I really tried to do my best to like and “accept” what was given to me. Returning to my old gaming club. Kitbashing and building to make a new army “mine”, despite the limitations. Leaning towards the Imperial Agents to fill the gaps and “enjoy the possibilities” of the new edition. But GW gonna GW. The new edition have not been out half a year, and they have alredy rendered one unit unplayable with a points increase of 314% (Yes, really. 35 to 110).
From 2nd to 7th the ”feel” of the Imperial Guard remained more or less consistant. 8th seemed a bit weird to me and 9th threw it out the window. It is a static skeleton of its former self, just a big pile of individually cool things that somehow is supposed to be clobbered together to a functioning force. Lots of new gorgeous models, sure. But you are not allowed to do anything with them. The modelling part of the hobby is more or less thrown out of the window in my opininon.
10th have drained the soul from the current rules, not to mention the fluff... For those of you that like the new I can't do anything other than congratulate, but I still have all my old books and I'll just return to what I liked.
For me, the 10th ed core rules are good, and the new models continue to be (mostly) great. 10th could be great, but the "soul" issues I see are all focused entirely in areas where players should be able to make choices, but these get taken away for no merit worthy reason.
Weapons have been consolidated way too hard - players used to be able to tweak options to make specialist units, not anymore. No idea why this is meant to be a good thing.
OG units are removed from the game. Some (but not all) are put into Legends, which for no reason in particular continues to be "almost matched play legal".
Endless bait and switches from GW. Buy this model on MTO! buy this model on last chance to buy! Buy these models from Horus Heresy! Sike, no longer fully rules supported.
And the indices are a little boring TBH. Regardless of any moaning about the new format, there are so many missed opportunities. Why don't cool models like the necromunda squats have imperial agent style rules for Votan? Why is it that daemons can join chaos marines, but you don't do anything cool with it like let a juggerlord lead bloodcrushers? I'm not exactly advocating for a return of the wild west of 2nd ed rules, but we know that GW of old would have tried to sneak some rule of cool options in.
Wayniac wrote: For me absolutely. I have played this game off and on since 1997 and it has never felt as a lifeless as it has now.
I don't know whether it's them streamlining the rules to appeal to the competitive magic type players or them trying to poorly imitate warmachine or what but everything about this edition feels completely off as a war game. While it can be argued that 40K has not felt like a war game in years The point remains that they seem to be moving further and further away and into something that I can't even describe what it feels like
They don't reward tactics and strategy, there are weird advanced use cases of all the rules which you don't know unless you devote yourself to system mastery, which the average player is not going to know but the competitive player is going to, everything is more bloated than ever before with just the number of units and factions. The rules themselves are good but something about them just feel off and I don't know what it is.
It feels like it's in this nebulous place where it's trying to be unique but the only people who it's appealing to are the people that don't actually care about the game and only play it because it's popular.
Wait, you think 10th Edition appeals to Magic players?
As someone who has far too many Commander decks, hell no it doesn't.
At most they kind of WANT to appeal to that demographic. They just do a too bad job with it and forget that most TG wargamers are not in that demographic.
Space Marines are a key part of the soul of 40k.
Most Firstborn have been discontinued as of 10th, including the boxy Dreadnought (Even In Death, He Still Serves), and the Land Speeder, with the replacements being...questionable (The Storm Speeder in particular is a meme machine for Battle Brother Tinnitus).
I don't think things are dying; they're just changing. People don't stick with things forever, by the nature of what we are as human beings. That said, change doesn't necessarily have to be good, at least in people's opinions.
tneva82 wrote: Uhhuh. You realize right that you can't say it was 314% increase without accounting that model size in unit about doubled?
Too cheap unit isn't just cost per model but cost per unit. Too cheap unit is problem even if stat's are all 1's and price per model high for stats.
Just look at ripper swarms(unit bound to get same nerf eventually). 20 pts for unit. Make every stat 1 and every list would still have 3 units
The problem I'm having with that is that a unit could not be "legal" for more than a few months. No matter how you twist it, for me to play those same models I have to pay 110 instead of 35 points . Which makes it a non-choice.
Changes happen, but come on! Now I have to convert another 5 dudes because GW thought that their stagnant brickbuilding points system had to be even more rigid (Ooohhh only a 57% increase in points for 10!). But as I said, it wont be any 10th for me. Good for you who like it, but I still find it to be a mess that is not worth the few hours a week I can spend with this hobby.
Heresy shows 7th rules were fine and needed cleanup, and it was codex creep and overpowered formations/detachments that ruined it.
Still, something is missing from the current editions. Even just look at the miniatures. A lot of the old ones just had way more "life" than the new. Compare a space marine army around 5th or 6th edition to 8th/9th/10th. The old one carries a lot more appeal, both visually and in composition, and I can't fully explain why.
There's something about the game from 8th edition onward that makes it feel less like a real wargame, which it actually felt like from second to 7th (I'm not counting rogue trader of course because that was a completely different beast). But the game also doesn't feel like a rogue trader RPG with wargaming elements either.
And there were still issues with HH1, especially with regards to Psychic powers. When the majority of forces could get two Psykers max there were others that could do it out the wazoo and get a whole extra 10-20 minutes of game turn.
Word Bearers gave a rough start and then the Thousand Sons came along to really rub salt in the wound with Ruinstorm just adding to the pile.
Thousand Sons are still really good with Psykers in HH2 but they don't dominate every game they play anymore.
10th is 40k stripped of almost everything that made it a wargame, without anything added in to make it more like a wargame.
It’s now just a less intuitive, less balanced, and much less fun version of MTG. With the added caveat of being incredibly expensive and involved to play at a baseline.
A wargame is a realistic simulation of warfare. 40k has never been a wargame because it has never been a realistic simulation of the lore and much less realistic warfare.
Doubly true as the lore itself isn't what you can call a realistic. Or even consistent while at it.
It has always been a game that at its best has been able to trick its players into believing chainswords are realistic and viable weapons.
No. The soul was drained ages ago. I would say 5th edition.
10th is the best edition since 5th.
6th lasted a week and a half.
7th was a power gamers fetish.
8th no one remembers.
9th was the worst edition ever.
10th feels more like good ol' Warhammer again.
The slow death of 40k has been:
The removal of customization, the fleshing out of the lore, and the popularization of factions and units that don't belong in the table top game.
Unless we talk about objectively quantifiable things like sales data or market share, every point on a list like this is "how dare other people like stuff I don't like". And stating it is as much of a rebuttal as the original statement was undeniable proof of it.
Uptonius wrote: the fleshing out of the lore, and the popularization of factions and units that don't belong in the table top game.
Ok explain these last two to me.
The last one in particular feels like "how dare other people like stuff I don't like".
I would assume Flyers/Superheavies, neither of which really belonged in 40k as a company game, and ever since they were added it seemed to be the catalyst that started making 40k less of that and more a Frankenstein game.
Uptonius wrote: No. The soul was drained ages ago. I would say 5th edition.
10th is the best edition since 5th.
6th lasted a week and a half.
7th was a power gamers fetish.
8th no one remembers.
9th was the worst edition ever.
10th feels more like good ol' Warhammer again.
The slow death of 40k has been:
The removal of customization, the fleshing out of the lore, and the popularization of factions and units that don't belong in the table top game.
You sound confused.
Please Explain:
So if the slow death of 40k is due to removal of customization, fleshing out of lore, popularizing of factions & units that you don't think belong on the table.....
How does it feel more like good ol' Warhammer again?
Wayniac wrote: I would assume Flyers/Superheavies, neither of which really belonged in 40k as a company game, and ever since they were added it seemed to be the catalyst that started making 40k less of that and more a Frankenstein game.
While true, flyers were introduced in 5th with Vendettas, Stormravens and Necron croissants.
And to be honest by 5th the average game was already in the 1850-2000 range and at that size a superheavy isn't as ridiculous. I mean if you can fit a dozen tanks then you can fit a Knight.
Still, something is missing from the current editions. Even just look at the miniatures. A lot of the old ones just had way more "life" than the new. Compare a space marine army around 5th or 6th edition to 8th/9th/10th. The old one carries a lot more appeal, both visually and in composition, and I can't fully explain why.
It's the monopose, over-repeated CAD designs throughout the armies, belief the "GW way" is the only way to paint them (e.g. Marines must be edge highlighted, because someone said so...), the general tone on the internet that any GW model over ~8 years old is "trash" and desperately in need of an update (so won't be included in said armies) and a lack of incentive (or even knowledge) to convert. Every single army now just looks far too samey and homogenised. It's just boring to look at people's armies now that are mainly composed of modern GW plastics. Sure, they look good, but there's no life to them. Coupled with the internet's general obsession with "the meta" and where random army placed in some tournament in bumfeth nowhere, and you just get the same things repeated ad nauseum.
Still, something is missing from the current editions. Even just look at the miniatures. A lot of the old ones just had way more "life" than the new. Compare a space marine army around 5th or 6th edition to 8th/9th/10th. The old one carries a lot more appeal, both visually and in composition, and I can't fully explain why.
It's the monopose, over-repeated CAD designs throughout the armies, belief the "GW way" is the only way to paint them (e.g. Marines must be edge highlighted, because someone said so...), the general tone on the internet that any GW model over ~8 years old is "trash" and desperately in need of an update (so won't be included in said armies) and a lack of incentive (or even knowledge) to convert. Every single army now just looks far too samey and homogenised. It's just boring to look at people's armies now that are mainly composed of modern GW plastics. Sure, they look good, but there's no life to them. Coupled with the internet's general obsession with "the meta" and where random army placed in some tournament in bumfeth nowhere, and you just get the same things repeated ad nauseum.
Yeah, that sounds right. And the scale creep on models so that even relatively new but still old ones don't look right against brand new ones.
MkIII is a great example The new ones are only a couple years old, and yet they look completely out of place with the brand new ones coming out, to where it looks awkward having both types next to each other. It's ridiculous. There's no reason each new set has to be larger than the previous ones. On top of that, they just feel hollow. Like I have looked a old battle reports from 5th edition, and while the overall quality is definitely better now, they don't look nearly as good.
Uptonius wrote: the fleshing out of the lore, and the popularization of factions and units that don't belong in the table top game.
Ok explain these last two to me.
The last one in particular feels like "how dare other people like stuff I don't like".
Factions: Gray Knights, Death Watch, individual chaos god factions, Knights, Chaos Knights, Harlequins and Votann.
Grey Knights and Deathwatch were better as single unit additions.
Chaos should not be organized and categorized.
Knights are for epic.
Harlequins and Squats were gone for a reason. They were a waste of time and resources that could have been put into better things... Like editing rules and play testing.
Tyran wrote: The last one in particular feels like "how dare other people like stuff I don't like".
Based on GWs sales history from 2001 (Tau) to 2016 (AoS) I would think it's you who dares to enjoy what the majority did not.
The only thing that saved GW was letting other companies use the IP for videogames. A market that directly impacts their own.
Uptonius wrote: the fleshing out of the lore, and the popularization of factions and units that don't belong in the table top game.
Ok explain these last two to me.
The last one in particular feels like "how dare other people like stuff I don't like".
Factions: Gray Knights, Death Watch, individual chaos god factions, Knights, Chaos Knights, Harlequins and Votann.
Grey Knights and Deathwatch were better as single unit additions.
Chaos should not be organized and categorized.
Knights are for epic.
Harlequins and Squats were gone for a reason. They were a waste of time and resources that could have been put into better things... Like editing rules and play testing.
I didn't stutter.
"Sorry Dave we scrapped 5 of the armies planned for the next 5 years, I know you're a miniatures designer, but you're a playtester now. Yes, we know you didn't sign up for that. Yes we know we FAQ once a year and yes we expect you to drastically improve the game playtesting... on your own." Signed, 5th ed GW.
Factions: Gray Knights, Death Watch, individual chaos god factions, Knights, Chaos Knights, Harlequins and Votann.
Grey Knights and Deathwatch were better as single unit additions.
Chaos should not be organized and categorized.
Knights are for epic.
Harlequins and Squats were gone for a reason. They were a waste of time and resources that could have been put into better things... Like editing rules and play testing.
I didn't stutter.
I find it interesting you didn't mention Genestealer Cults, as they are also another recent addition with a small roster that also originally was "gone for a reason".
Uptonius wrote: Based on GWs sales history from 2001 (Tau) to 2016 (AoS) I would think it's you who dares to enjoy what the majority did not.
The only thing that saved GW was letting other companies use the IP for videogames. A market that directly impacts their own.
That's utter tosh. Licensing to game developers didn't "save" GW, getting rid of a poor sales system and revitalising its flagship products did.
Uptonius wrote: the fleshing out of the lore, and the popularization of factions and units that don't belong in the table top game.
Ok explain these last two to me.
The last one in particular feels like "how dare other people like stuff I don't like".
Factions: Gray Knights, Death Watch, individual chaos god factions, Knights, Chaos Knights, Harlequins and Votann.
Grey Knights and Deathwatch were better as single unit additions.
Chaos should not be organized and categorized.
Knights are for epic.
Harlequins and Squats were gone for a reason. They were a waste of time and resources that could have been put into better things... Like editing rules and play testing.
I didn't stutter.
I agree with many of these. Particularly knights belonging in Epic or Apocalypse. Might be different if GW put a shred of effort into their rules but I after 5 editions with the bastards I think it's pretty clear that's never going to happen.
However, Harlequins seem a bit of an odd one to complain about. It's not as if GW has invested many resources into them to begin with. They've got what? 10 models in this entire repitoir? And since 9th, they haven't even had their own codex.
Factions: Gray Knights, Death Watch, individual chaos god factions, Knights, Chaos Knights, Harlequins and Votann.
Grey Knights and Deathwatch were better as single unit additions.
Chaos should not be organized and categorized.
Knights are for epic.
Harlequins and Squats were gone for a reason. They were a waste of time and resources that could have been put into better things... Like editing rules and play testing.
I didn't stutter.
I find it interesting you didn't mention Genestealer Cults, as they are also another recent addition with a small roster that also originally was "gone for a reason".
Tyran wrote: I find it interesting you didn't mention Genestealer Cults, as they are also another recent addition with a small roster that also originally was "gone for a reason".
Kinda hypocritical don't you think?
I'm not sure there is a rationality - but I think there is a sort of argument that GSC represent a meaningfully different army/way to play - especially if GW aren't going to do a full on Chaos Cultist list.
I think you can argue knights don't belong in a skirmish scale game, and endless flavours of Marine are somewhat redundant.
I mean its an old saw for me - but I think Grey Knights would be much better represent to the fluff by having one super-mega Marine - who is half chapter master, half chief-librarian that you take like an Assassin or something. Rather than a whole army. Because that forces you to go "these are just... kinda... better Marines who are all psykers, and all get force weapons, and storm bolters, and teleporters because idk it seemed cool at the time."
But then I'd apply that to thing like Custodes. One should be a massive thing in itself. A whole army of them inevitably forces them to be kind of nothing special.
Its arguably the same as Harlequins. Are they giving you anything you aren't getting (or should be getting) from the other flavours of Eldar? As a colourful/flavourful allied unit its fine. As a whole army, you are stepping on everyone's design space.
Are you sure you’re not thinking of 3rd Ed? When yes, 2nd did need an overhaul and refinement, but nobody had suggested putting baby and bath water on one of the ICBM’s Superman threw into the sun in Superman IV, The Quest for Peace.
But as for 10th? Way too early to say.
We’re barely 2 Codexes in, and given we no longer have FOC restrictions? There’s a lot of bedding in and fiddling around for folks to get used to.
The next two Codexes out of the gate (Ad Mech and Necrons) are release light, each getting a single character type model. But, both of those armies have had a lot of attention. Necrons in 9th, and Ad Mech have come from a standing start in…….I wanna say late 7th Ed, to become a force with a decent range of kits and units.
So in terms of what we can really expect Codex wise is still settling, and who can expect what releases wise remains entirely up in the air.
Still, something is missing from the current editions. Even just look at the miniatures. A lot of the old ones just had way more "life" than the new. Compare a space marine army around 5th or 6th edition to 8th/9th/10th. The old one carries a lot more appeal, both visually and in composition, and I can't fully explain why.
It's the monopose, over-repeated CAD designs throughout the armies, belief the "GW way" is the only way to paint them (e.g. Marines must be edge highlighted, because someone said so...), the general tone on the internet that any GW model over ~8 years old is "trash" and desperately in need of an update (so won't be included in said armies) and a lack of incentive (or even knowledge) to convert. Every single army now just looks far too samey and homogenised. It's just boring to look at people's armies now that are mainly composed of modern GW plastics. Sure, they look good, but there's no life to them. Coupled with the internet's general obsession with "the meta" and where random army placed in some tournament in bumfeth nowhere, and you just get the same things repeated ad nauseum.
Yeah, that sounds right. And the scale creep on models so that even relatively new but still old ones don't look right against brand new ones.
Yeah they want people to replace entire collections/rebuild armies. If I buy anything now, it's to the 2nd-7th scale . . . And on ebay, because I don't want to give GW any money. I'm in the "miniature rescue" hobby now.
Scaling is all over the place now. Supposedly Abaddon can ride in a Land Raider . . . But that's a laughable proposition comparing the models. The old nodels aren't quite 1:1, but they're a heck of a lot closer than what's currently available.
Edit: I'd be curious to see the new Terminators next to the current Chaos Terminator kit. I wonder how consistent those are.
New terminators are ever so slightly taller than the chaos terminators. Again just enough to be noticeable but not like firstborn vs primaris; pretty comparable to old Mk3 and new Mk3 differences. Put them side by side and it'll look off.
Which shows the issue more because there's no consistency at all with the designers. Scale is all over the place.
Scaling is all over the place now. Supposedly Abaddon can ride in a Land Raider . . . But that's a laughable proposition comparing the models. The old nodels aren't quite 1:1, but they're a heck of a lot closer than what's currently available.
Edit: I'd be curious to see the new Terminators next to the current Chaos Terminator kit. I wonder how consistent those are.
Sometimes playability has to be a thing. Rhino's bigger than current land raider would not make for good game. To leave room for vehicles boards would be too sparse for los blocking and boards would be even more silly cramped.
Scaling is all over the place now. Supposedly Abaddon can ride in a Land Raider . . . But that's a laughable proposition comparing the models. The old nodels aren't quite 1:1, but they're a heck of a lot closer than what's currently available.
Edit: I'd be curious to see the new Terminators next to the current Chaos Terminator kit. I wonder how consistent those are.
Sometimes playability has to be a thing. Rhino's bigger than current land raider would not make for good game. To leave room for vehicles boards would be too sparse for los blocking and boards would be even more silly cramped.
Yeah playability is totally a thing . . . but so is visual consistency. I'll take the more consistent scale of the classic lines. Not to mention the smaller model bases being used on larger tables.
You know what was really wild to see, was the scale discrepancies in the HH starter kit. If I remember it was the plastic Cataphracti, the new MkVI sculpts, and then the hero models, all looked like they were modelled to different scales.
Scaling is all over the place now. Supposedly Abaddon can ride in a Land Raider . . . But that's a laughable proposition comparing the models. The old nodels aren't quite 1:1, but they're a heck of a lot closer than what's currently available.
Edit: I'd be curious to see the new Terminators next to the current Chaos Terminator kit. I wonder how consistent those are.
Sometimes playability has to be a thing. Rhino's bigger than current land raider would not make for good game. To leave room for vehicles boards would be too sparse for los blocking and boards would be even more silly cramped.
Yeah playability is totally a thing . . . but so is visual consistency. I'll take the more consistent scale of the classic lines. Not to mention the smaller model bases being used on larger tables.
You know what was really wild to see, was the scale discrepancies in the HH starter kit. If I remember it was the plastic Cataphracti, the new MkVI sculpts, and then the hero models, all looked like they were modelled to different scales.
The scale for 40k has always been all over the place, an ork boy, tactical marine, eldar guardian, cadian are all awfully similar in height mini wise if you get their 3rd/4th ed counterparts. I seem to recall firewarriors being a but dumpy in comparison, but it's still a bit of a mess.
Scaling is all over the place now. Supposedly Abaddon can ride in a Land Raider . . . But that's a laughable proposition comparing the models. The old nodels aren't quite 1:1, but they're a heck of a lot closer than what's currently available.
Edit: I'd be curious to see the new Terminators next to the current Chaos Terminator kit. I wonder how consistent those are.
Sometimes playability has to be a thing. Rhino's bigger than current land raider would not make for good game. To leave room for vehicles boards would be too sparse for los blocking and boards would be even more silly cramped.
Yeah playability is totally a thing . . . but so is visual consistency. I'll take the more consistent scale of the classic lines. Not to mention the smaller model bases being used on larger tables.
You know what was really wild to see, was the scale discrepancies in the HH starter kit. If I remember it was the plastic Cataphracti, the new MkVI sculpts, and then the hero models, all looked like they were modelled to different scales.
The scale for 40k has always been all over the place, an ork boy, tactical marine, eldar guardian, cadian are all awfully similar in height mini wise if you get their 3rd/4th ed counterparts. I seem to recall firewarriors being a but dumpy in comparison, but it's still a bit of a mess.
I don't mind minor discrepancies between different armies, except is certain circumstances (Chaos Terminators compared to loyalist Terminators, for example, since they're wearing the same armor). What I'm collecting is armies. I want those to be more internally consistent. It's more important to me that all the infantry within an army match up well with each other and the vehicles that they travel with. The scaling issue with the modern kits is that the scale consistencies within armies has started coming apart more, like with the HH starter example. A secondary issue is that the size of some models just makes them much more unplayable. Larger bases don't pack into urban terrain as easily. It's hard to keep a Greater Daemon out of LOS. Stuff like that.
But even in the old days, the old Marine vs. Guardsman thing never bugged me too much because the Marine models looked sufficiently more impressive in size at a tabletop distance. The visual narrative between a Marine at the time and the Guardsman at the time remained consistent because the Marine still looks like he would smash the Guardsman even though they are a more comparable height. I also started in an era when Marines weren't depicted as being so gigantic anyways.
As much as I dislike the fluff behind the change (unnecessary, they could have just released Primaris as new version of marine models, no change in fluff or rules) the visual change is striking and absolutely for the best for me.
Old marines look so derpy with absurd proportions, like from a Nick Park movie. They looked derpy for me then (never wanted a marine army when I played wh40k) but now, in comparison they are just laughable. I think what was the most ridiculous for me was always how tiny skinny they have to be under this armour. Just compare their thighs with, say an Imperial Guardsman arms. And these huge helmetless heads (bigger then helmet onesXD ) coming out of those gummy bear bodies... Old marines were awful, just admit
Uptonius wrote: Based on GWs sales history from 2001 (Tau) to 2016 (AoS) I would think it's you who dares to enjoy what the majority did not.
The only thing that saved GW was letting other companies use the IP for videogames. A market that directly impacts their own.
That's utter tosh. Licensing to game developers didn't "save" GW, getting rid of a poor sales system and revitalising its flagship products did.
I was just going off of market research and the GW marketing teams own words.
Factions: Gray Knights, Death Watch, individual chaos god factions, Knights, Chaos Knights, Harlequins and Votann.
Grey Knights and Deathwatch were better as single unit additions.
Chaos should not be organized and categorized.
Knights are for epic.
Harlequins and Squats were gone for a reason. They were a waste of time and resources that could have been put into better things... Like editing rules and play testing.
I didn't stutter.
I find it interesting you didn't mention Genestealer Cults, as they are also another recent addition with a small roster that also originally was "gone for a reason".
Kinda hypocritical don't you think?
Not at all. GSC were a reasonable good addition to the game. A non-power armored faction. They also had a niche to fill.
Small roster? ... Really?
I forgot Custodes because I never considered them a legitimate faction.
Cyel wrote: As much as I dislike the fluff behind the change (unnecessary, they could have just released Primaris as new version of marine models, no change in fluff or rules) the visual change is striking and absolutely for the best for me.
Old marines look so derpy with absurd proportions, like from a Nick Park movie. They looked derpy for me then (never wanted a marine army when I played wh40k) but now, in comparison they are just laughable. I think what was the most ridiculous for me was always how tiny skinny they have to be under this armour. Just compare their thighs with, say an Imperial Guardsman arms. And these huge helmetless heads (bigger then helmet onesXD ) coming out of those gummy bear bodies... Old marines were awful, just admit
Kind of have to agree. As much as I didn't like the idea of "upgrading" my marine models to the modern scale, looking back on the old models now that I'm used to the new scale, the old ones look bloody awful
What is painful about this is the fact that the "new scale" is a relatively new concept, and the vast majority of all models are stuck in the old scales.. which means the scales are all over the place unless you seriously limit what you are fileding in your army
That's the worst part about them constantly messing with the scale. If you want to use certain models, they can look stupidly out of place. Like using 1/72 scale and 1/56 scale together type of nonsense.
Has 40k lost its soul? I wouldn't say it's lost it, more that its soul has changed.
I've played since mid-4th and I think 10th is the most rounded edition we've had since 5th. We've had some real shitstorms of rules issues and powerplays but I like to think most, if not all of these have been ironed out at the start of 10th.
From my perspective, the changing nature is two-fold:
- Crucify me all you like, but it seems that the regular thing to do now is just criticise, moan and bitch about GW for every single thing they do*. No, GW isn't perfect. Not even close, but I've seen on various sites and social medias how some users seem to just get off on finding any reason to whine about something for no actual reason other than to appear contrarian and in their minds, superior. I mean most of the threads I see on here are just finding a reason to complain. Hell, I even saw a FB post a couple of paragraphs long complaining why two Drones in the old Tau book were different colours to the rest, with the typical hyperbole of "typical GW, sloppy work, why should anyone pay for it, etc, etc".
- The overall aesthetic and theme has markedly changed. When I first started this hobby the Warhammer sets were in the toyshop amongst all the other models, and they were this distinct image of grimdark against the more colourful Airfix and diecast sets. They looked far more adult than the surrounding products. Now it's cleaner, there's less grimdark and more child/teen-friendly imagery. I'm not stating this to be a good or bad thing; I don't know whether it's just expanding their player base or due to various political interpretations, but it's significantly different from the ones I grew up with.
So no, I wouldn't say 10th has lost it's soul. I just don't recognise it from the soul when I started this game.
*Yes I'm well aware of the irony of complaining about people complaining, so don't bother pointing that out.
Valkyrie wrote: So no, I wouldn't say 10th has lost it's soul. I just don't recognise it from the soul when I started this game.
This is, I think, the real point. The game now is basically unrecognizable from the game back in its heyday. 2nd/3rd/4th even 5th. Both in visuals, and in approach/style.
Wayniac wrote: That's the worst part about them constantly messing with the scale. If you want to use certain models, they can look stupidly out of place. Like using 1/72 scale and 1/56 scale together type of nonsense.
Just on the scale point, I'd say there's also an issue with 'diorama' models.
Partially because it makes models far larger than they need to be but also because of the 'soulless' aspect. The Silent King is one of the best examples of this. There's obviously a load of detail on his throne, but the Silent King himself might as well be Necron #11472. He's far less visually interesting than characters like the Stormlord or Anrakyr, and has less personality than even the Necron Lord from back in 3rd edition.
Cyel wrote: As much as I dislike the fluff behind the change (unnecessary, they could have just released Primaris as new version of marine models, no change in fluff or rules) the visual change is striking and absolutely for the best for me.
Old marines look so derpy with absurd proportions, like from a Nick Park movie. They looked derpy for me then (never wanted a marine army when I played wh40k) but now, in comparison they are just laughable. I think what was the most ridiculous for me was always how tiny skinny they have to be under this armour. Just compare their thighs with, say an Imperial Guardsman arms. And these huge helmetless heads (bigger then helmet onesXD ) coming out of those gummy bear bodies... Old marines were awful, just admit
See, i see those and go: "Oh, I want some!" It's also not a fair comparison because those aren't the current devestator squad, those are pretty clearly the old ones, as they're on 25mm. Better comparison is this:
Spoiler:
But I will concede that the technology has advanced and models that were good then are rough now. My issue is that whenever they update a kit, especially from marines, they suck absolutely everything I like about the kit from it, from aestetics to build process.
Valkyrie wrote: So no, I wouldn't say 10th has lost it's soul. I just don't recognise it from the soul when I started this game.
This is, I think, the real point. The game now is basically unrecognizable from the game back in its heyday. 2nd/3rd/4th even 5th. Both in visuals, and in approach/style.
Not sure I agree with you. Sure, marines have changed, and a couple factions have been added, but what else has visually changed? Take eldar for example, I don't see much diff to how they looked in 2nd edition times vs how they look now
Valkyrie wrote: So no, I wouldn't say 10th has lost it's soul. I just don't recognise it from the soul when I started this game.
This is, I think, the real point. The game now is basically unrecognizable from the game back in its heyday. 2nd/3rd/4th even 5th. Both in visuals, and in approach/style.
Not sure I agree with you. Sure, marines have changed, and a couple factions have been added, but what else has visually changed? Take eldar for example, I don't see much diff to how they looked in 2nd edition times vs how they look now
It's hard to cite a specific reason. But I look at old battle reports from White Dwarf during 2nd/3rd/4th edition, and they look nothing at all like battle reports of today, visually. They look better, more unique, more interesting, more appealing. I just can't explain WHY.
I sorta think that 40K is coming out of its GrimDerp phase, not entire sure where it started.
Now I just think it’s fairly Average stuff, there some good ideas in there but GW isn’t good at getting them out.
And some awful writing that really should be buried away as Imperial propaganda, a scribe being heretical or an insane inquisitor.
Some factions I think narrative wise have lost their soul, Eldar feel a bit like they got no ideas after their last one got shuttered.
Necrons I think were a good idea, but now have some of the worst writing I think I have read for a miniature game ever.
And I just think it’s lack of focus at GW on the setting, even the big event things tend to feel small since they just don’t get the big universe they have.
As for the rules, 40K been bad a while now. No one really cares, so GW won’t.
See, i see those and go: "Oh, I want some!" It's also not a fair comparison because those aren't the current devestator squad, those are pretty clearly the old ones, as they're on 25mm. Better comparison is this:
Spoiler:
Oh, these don't look too good either. Take a look at this garden gnome (proportions-wise) sergeant with this huge helmet on top of relatively tiny chest. Try to imagine his body inside this thick armour.
Or for another comparison, take this guy and imagine what his thighs look like. How thick and how long they are under the armour...and now compare them to his head XD
See, i see those and go: "Oh, I want some!" It's also not a fair comparison because those aren't the current devestator squad, those are pretty clearly the old ones, as they're on 25mm. Better comparison is this:
Spoiler:
Oh, these don't look too good either. Take a look at this garden gnome (proportions-wise) sergeant with this huge helmet on top of relatively tiny chest. Try to imagine his body inside this thick armour.
Or for another comparison, take this guy and imagine what his thighs look like. How thick and how long they are under the armour...and now compare them to his head XD
He's as old as that first devestator squad, they just got reboxed with new bases when they added a monopose captain to the kit.
The thing is though the old models still have a charm that the new ones are lacking. I don't know exactly what it is but while those do look goofy a lot of the old models have a life to them which the current brand of 3D designed ones look bland.
And It can't just be because there are 3D generated because there's plenty of 3D printed models that have life and look a lot more visually interesting
He's as old as that first devestator squad, they just got reboxed with new bases when they added a monopose captain to the kit.
But the proportions didn't really change later. It was still stick dudes inside armour that is too small, with short legs, miniscule chests and giant heads.
He's as old as that first devestator squad, they just got reboxed with new bases when they added a monopose captain to the kit.
But the proportions didn't really change later. It was still stick dudes inside armour that is too small, with short legs, miniscule chests and giant heads.
This is not a rude thing, but a genuine question because I don't know, but have you actually built both these old models, and the newer ones?
The 6th-ed redesigns, while it does have oversized heads and awkward posing still, are much, much better. They don't have this issue as much as you claim. To give four examples, I've built a Company Command, a tactical squad, Deathwatch veterans, and a heresy mk2 command Set. All of them are very different, and there's a distinct difference in these issues. Comparing to GSC models I own, which are very recent, only really the mk2 has an issue with the thinneness of the limbs, and both they and the company command really had a distinct height issue. The Tactical squad was properly proportioned for the models of the time, just posed oddly. (the recently removed mk3 is proof of this, in that it's the old scale but not posed in a squat. The Assault/vanguard vets show this as well.) And the Deathwatch vets are perfect.
Wayniac wrote: The thing is though the old models still have a charm that the new ones are lacking. I don't know exactly what it is but while those do look goofy a lot of the old models have a life to them which the current brand of 3D designed ones look bland.
And It can't just be because there are 3D generated because there's plenty of 3D printed models that have life and look a lot more visually interesting
Its not 'life', its called 'nostalgia'. Also known as 'the rose tinted glasses'.
If gw seriously released a kit with the dubious 'look/quality' of the original screamer killer or nid warriors and tried to be serious with it, the internet would break with hate and laughter.
Wayniac wrote: The thing is though the old models still have a charm that the new ones are lacking. I don't know exactly what it is but while those do look goofy a lot of the old models have a life to them which the current brand of 3D designed ones look bland.
And It can't just be because there are 3D generated because there's plenty of 3D printed models that have life and look a lot more visually interesting
Its not 'life', its called 'nostalgia'. Also known as 'the rose tinted glasses'.
If gw seriously released a kit with the dubious 'look/quality' of the original screamer killer or nid warriors and tried to be serious with it, the internet would break with hate and laughter.
I bet the desolation squad sold quite well, no matter the hate and laughter GW can sell it.
Problem about the newer models usually is their restricted yet exaggerated posing which makes you look for alternatives after the first Box for some variety in your force. GWs monopose models work for Kill Team, but not for a larger game like 40K.
I think for some of us, we've yet to really wrestle with the idea that our perception of the past is largely something our brains come up with. The events of our lives - those nice games with friends in the good ol' days - still happened, but the way we record and perceive that information can and will change over time. That's being human. The reason we often struggle to really articulate what is 'wrong' with the new stuff is that we've yet to truly grasp that.
RaptorusRex wrote: I think for some of us, we've yet to really wrestle with the idea that our perception of the past is largely something our brains come up with. The events of our lives - those nice games with friends in the good ol' days - still happened, but the way we record and perceive that information can and will change over time. That's being human. The reason we often struggle to really articulate what is 'wrong' with the new stuff is that we've yet to truly grasp that.
See, I'm in a weird space in that I started with 40k in 2020, right as 9th was announced (with 0 prior knowledge of 40k), and have since gone back to 3rd edition, as well as been playing heresy 1.0, 2.0 and some other wargames, and for me at least I can see that something distinct was lost between 10th and 9th that I can't quite put a finger on, that 3rd edition also has. Like, for all of it's differences, you can tell 9th edition and 3rd edition are kin. 10th edition (having played 30+ games at this point) Feels alien to me, in a way that's hard to describe. 3rd edition and heresy while different, I was still able to pick up without it feeling like learning a completely different game system, it still felt like a 40k derived system.
There are definite improvements made over the years that have enhanced the experience. I'm sure the 3rd-edition designers would have loved a way to update things in days or weeks rather than an annual Chapter approved, and I can't imagine trying to play 3rd without the convenience of battlescribe and pdfs of the books. 10th edition is lightyears ahead on that front at least.
RaptorusRex wrote: I think for some of us, we've yet to really wrestle with the idea that our perception of the past is largely something our brains come up with. The events of our lives - those nice games with friends in the good ol' days - still happened, but the way we record and perceive that information can and will change over time. That's being human. The reason we often struggle to really articulate what is 'wrong' with the new stuff is that we've yet to truly grasp that.
For some, maybe.
But I feel I can pretty specifically articulate the issues I have with the newer stuff. I could make a hefty list, but very clear break point for me is that I have an extensive miniature collection that already has a consistent styling and scale and new models just don't match.
I'll also point out a shift in style strategy from GWs perspective. When I started the game (and for a long time), the use-case being designed for by GW was the game. The exaggerated proportions are things made to look good from a commander-of-the-table view. But these days there's a good case to be made that a primary interest of many people is painting their models and posting images on social media. Access to macro lenses has never been greater! It's also true that the interwebs is where people get a lot of exposure to the product. So a shift in styling towards proportions (and ease of building) that photograph better for internet posting makes a lot of sense. GW wants models that will look impressive when people post on social media next to Infinity models and the like.
. . .
But god, why Primaris?! (Greed) What a nightmare.
I'll post some more responses later, but busy atm.
we only really have the indexes for the bulk of forces, and while not quite as bland as the 8th edition ones in some ways they are worse in others - however they feel very phoned in, they are however only the stop gap.
the actual game is more interesting, the default scenario in the rules is at least objective based which is progress, simple corner castling is now basically auto lose which is a definite improvement. the Leviathan mission deck, while to me something that should be in the rulebook, is very good. the three card mission selector thing and allowing players to go for fixed or variable secondary objectives makes the games play differently which actually feels a lot better than the "always play mission 1 with kill points" that 5th was locally
things have without question gotten a lot more generic though
This is not a rude thing, but a genuine question because I don't know, but have you actually built both these old models, and the newer ones?
.
I actually have. Around 6th I tried building a White Scars army and I gave up after a few units and vehicles, also because it never really looked good in my eyes and part of the blame is certainly on the garden-gnomish proportions of the dudes. I built quite a few armies then and never really had a problem with proportions and my 3rd edition metal Eldar Aspect Warriors were looking absolutely cool as awesome ~2 years ago when I was selling them despite being more than 20 years old.
I attempted to do White Scars again now, for Kill Team, but this time Primaris. And instead of Nick Park movie escapees what I got was some badass ripped psychos in giant armour. Photos below for comparison (sorry about the poor quality of the old one).
Spoiler:
Being on bikes or vehicles kind of helped, because it hid the Buzz Astral proportions (legs-torso-head) a little bit. But still, the look of the entire army was more smirk-inducing that menacing.
Insectum7 wrote: ...But god, why Primaris?! (Greed) What a nightmare...
1) Characteristic overreaction to the perception that 7e's thriving secondary bits market to get enough weapons for WYSIWYG competitive loadouts on your Sternguard or Skitarii or whatever was a huge barrier to entry for casual players, and the game would be easier for new players if there were no weapon options.
2) The top brass had been planning a Sigmar-style complete range reboot before seeing the reaction to Sigmar and trying to frantically backpedal, only the SM/DG models were already done so they thought they'd release them anyway.
3) Chronic insecurity that players hate all the stuff GW used to make and won't love them unless they try something completely new.
4) Chronic insecurity that players won't buy stuff without a constant stream of Space Marine/Stormcast releases.
5) The head of sculpting is super into Space Marines/Stormcast, and refuses to allocate sufficient time to working on any other projects.
(Disclaimer: I have no evidence for any of this, but I have no evidence against any of this, either...)
This is not a rude thing, but a genuine question because I don't know, but have you actually built both these old models, and the newer ones?
.
I actually have. Around 6th I tried building a White Scars army and I gave up after a few units and vehicles, also because it never really looked good in my eyes and part of the blame is certainly on the garden-gnomish proportions of the dudes. I built quite a few armies then and never really had a problem with proportions and my 3rd edition metal Eldar Aspect Warriors were looking absolutely cool as awesome ~2 years ago when I was selling them despite being more than 20 years old.
I attempted to do White Scars again now, for Kill Team, but this time Primaris. And instead of Nick Park movie escapees what I got was some badass ripped psychos in giant armour. Photos below for comparison (sorry about the poor quality of the old one).
Spoiler:
Being on bikes or vehicles kind of helped, because it hid the Buzz Astral proportions (legs-torso-head) a little bit. But still, the look of the entire army was more smirk-inducing that menacing.
Spoiler:
I'm not sure how these cool "old" models serve your argument, they look at least as good as the new ones
This is not a rude thing, but a genuine question because I don't know, but have you actually built both these old models, and the newer ones?
.
I actually have. Around 6th I tried building a White Scars army and I gave up after a few units and vehicles, also because it never really looked good in my eyes and part of the blame is certainly on the garden-gnomish proportions of the dudes. I built quite a few armies then and never really had a problem with proportions and my 3rd edition metal Eldar Aspect Warriors were looking absolutely cool as awesome ~2 years ago when I was selling them despite being more than 20 years old.
I attempted to do White Scars again now, for Kill Team, but this time Primaris. And instead of Nick Park movie escapees what I got was some badass ripped psychos in giant armour. Photos below for comparison (sorry about the poor quality of the old one).
Spoiler:
Being on bikes or vehicles kind of helped, because it hid the Buzz Astral proportions (legs-torso-head) a little bit. But still, the look of the entire army was more smirk-inducing that menacing.
Spoiler:
I'm not sure how these cool "old" models serve your argument, they look at least as good as the new ones
I'm with you there, I think they look great. I guess agree-to-disagree then. Cyel thinks they're Garden-Gnomish, i think they look great.
This is not a rude thing, but a genuine question because I don't know, but have you actually built both these old models, and the newer ones?
.
I actually have. Around 6th I tried building a White Scars army and I gave up after a few units and vehicles, also because it never really looked good in my eyes and part of the blame is certainly on the garden-gnomish proportions of the dudes. I built quite a few armies then and never really had a problem with proportions and my 3rd edition metal Eldar Aspect Warriors were looking absolutely cool as awesome ~2 years ago when I was selling them despite being more than 20 years old.
I attempted to do White Scars again now, for Kill Team, but this time Primaris. And instead of Nick Park movie escapees what I got was some badass ripped psychos in giant armour. Photos below for comparison (sorry about the poor quality of the old one).
Spoiler:
Being on bikes or vehicles kind of helped, because it hid the Buzz Astral proportions (legs-torso-head) a little bit. But still, the look of the entire army was more smirk-inducing that menacing.
Spoiler:
I'm not sure how these cool "old" models serve your argument, they look at least as good as the new ones
I'm with you there, I think they look great. I guess agree-to-disagree then. Cyel thinks they're Garden-Gnomish, i think they look great.
I'll have to third this.
The proportions might not be perfect but honestly it's just not something that really stands out to me. What does stand out is that the heads look great, especially the expressions and facial hair.
I think a big part of the mixed reception for Primaris was the handling.
Cawl is a very interesting character, but on introduction it was more “here’s this dude and he can do anything”. No build up. No “oh my, it’s actually him” type reveal.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I think a big part of the mixed reception for Primaris was the handling.
Cawl is a very interesting character, but on introduction it was more “here’s this dude and he can do anything”. No build up. No “oh my, it’s actually him” type reveal.
Just very, very abrupt.
And the whole "He did what the Emperor could not" crap, making better-than Marines.
Is making a better genehanced soldier than standard marines really all that? Even the Emperor had his Ten Thousand. I've come to understand that the Legiones Astartes were an economical solution after the superior Thunder Warriors proved to be unstable. And though I don't have a source for this, I'm pretty sure the Astartes creation process was in a constant state of improvement.
RaptorusRex wrote: Is making a better genehanced soldier than standard marines really all that?
Was all that? It was complete heresy by the standards of the day!
Even the Emperor had his Ten Thousand. I've come to understand that the Legiones Astartes were an economical solution after the superior Thunder Warriors proved to be unstable. And though I don't have a source for this, I'm pretty sure the Astartes creation process was in a constant state of improvement.
If you look around the Imperium, you'll notice the complete lack of technological progress in any of those areas. What's next, awards and recognition for all of the pioneering work Fabius Bile has done?
Gert wrote: Depending on where you look will get you different results.
Dakka is a largely negative place whether it's justified or not so you're going to see negative opinions.
If you go somewhere with more positive opinions you'll see the opposite.
The Internet is the worst place to gauge opinion because its largely polarised, hyperbole or intended to get a rise out of other people.
I have played 10th and have enjoyed it far more than 9th and 8th. I enjoyed 7th because I had Daemonkin but the edition was not good.
For some the soul of 40K is the quality of the game mechanics.
For some it's the quality of the fluff/backstory that carries over into the game.
And that's the "soul of the game" that has been largely curtailed. Its one thing - and a good thing - for example to see all the formations for playstyles be available for each fleshed out chapter - its a bad thing that each of those chapters don't have a synergtistic chapter tactic type rule that boosts that formation for that chapter. (Almost) Each chapter had their own playstyle/unit types that were leaned into and that appears to have gone away this time.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I think a big part of the mixed reception for Primaris was the handling.
Cawl is a very interesting character, but on introduction it was more “here’s this dude and he can do anything”. No build up. No “oh my, it’s actually him” type reveal.
Just very, very abrupt.
Whenever the Primaris conversation comes up, I feel compelled to mention the 9th edition Torchbearer Fleet Crusade rules. The idea was that Custodes, Admech and Imperial Agents could escort Primaris Greyshields to the forces they were destined to reinforce. So the first phase of the Crusade is locating and making contact with the parent chapter, the second phase was bonding with the parent chapter and the third phase was the official induction.
This provided a cool little story template that allowed players to create their army's relationship with Primaris and other Imperial Forces on the tabletop by playing games. It's what made me see the story potential of Primaris.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I think a big part of the mixed reception for Primaris was the handling.
Cawl is a very interesting character, but on introduction it was more “here’s this dude and he can do anything”. No build up. No “oh my, it’s actually him” type reveal.
Just very, very abrupt.
I don't think it was the fluff handling, I think it was the marketing handling. People want to buy new stuff for their hobbies. They don't want to have perfectly good stuff for their hobbies forced into obsolesence. And yes, yes, you can always use the old stuff as proxies for the new stuff - but its still obsolete. Its not what you bought anymore, its a proxy for something you haven't. They made it pretty obvious Primaris was designed to replace First Born, they backed off a little from the pushback, but they still did it.
From the fluff I didn't get the impression Cawl can do what they Emperor couldn't - I got the impression he was standing on the Emperor's Shoulders taking the next step... sort of like that Ian Malcom Jurrasic Park speech - especially with the foreshadowing of him making Traitor Legion primaris.
I think the soul in 40k comes from the artistry and creativity with both the game and the pieces, as provided from GW and throughout the community.
This is not really encouraged to the same extent anymore, this has transitioned over many years.
As gw became more corporate, they are no longer allowed to show anything truly creative. No more hand painted artworks, everything in the art must be a model being sold. No more hand built terrain unless sold in a box. No rules for anything without a model. No more hand sculpted pieces.
The community often follows, "oh your model has a different base, sorry not allowed. This is a sport now, not a hobby". Terrain adapted for tournaments being ugly L-shaped shapes. Rules dont really work with other terrain, ok but why do tournaments not provide their own terrain rules then? Creativity has been stamped down that's why.
Why engage in 40k like a hobby when the more time you put in your army project, the less likely you are to get to play those armies before parts of them are banned to play in games? It's hard to blame one certain event for this, it is more of a culture in the game issue. Maybe when gw became corporate, the soul started to wither? I dunno, but it sure as gak feel alot more soulless now than before.
The 'soul' and the game feel like different things to me, and I could contend with the soul being gone but the core issue is that the game is just gak by wargaming standards. I tapped out in the start of 9th as I couldn't stand its sheer gimmicky, un-wargaming nature, 40k was always a very lite, very simple wargame but the changes incurred with 8e and 9e are just too much and 10e looks horrific compared even to those. I could be completely in favor of simplifying some needless bloat - there's no need to have a bajillion weapon types vs a simple, realistic fit such as 'small arms', 'GPMG', etc compared to the dozen boltgun subtypes or the needless variety of 'S8 nope cannon'.
But all form of tactical play has been completely gutted. The loss of AV was bad enough because with it being gone the whole point to outflanking anything became pointless. Especially when looking at Warhammer Fantasy's rulebooks, especially 6e, 40k just feels in its modern version like a children's toy compared to those. I'm left wishing that instead of getting into 40k when I was younger, (rightly) feeling that Fantasy might die soon when I entered the scene, that I had gotten into Fantasy anyway since the community never truly died.
The setting has been completely aborted from its original intentions and knowing some animators having worked on + shows, it's just a decrepit skeleton devoid of creativity or soul, everything being sucked away in the name of commerce. But that would be livable provided I had a proper wargame to play and not the sad joke that is modern 40k.
Scaling is all over the place now. Supposedly Abaddon can ride in a Land Raider . . . But that's a laughable proposition comparing the models. The old nodels aren't quite 1:1, but they're a heck of a lot closer than what's currently available.
Edit: I'd be curious to see the new Terminators next to the current Chaos Terminator kit. I wonder how consistent those are.
Sometimes playability has to be a thing. Rhino's bigger than current land raider would not make for good game. To leave room for vehicles boards would be too sparse for los blocking and boards would be even more silly cramped.
By the same logic there shouldn't be truescale primaris stuff either since now you can't fit marines into goddamn terrain.
10th is fine, games are more fun and less mentally taxing than comparable games in 9th edition, it's easier to switch between armies without doing a ton of homework first and list building doesn't consume an entire evening. It lacks the polish of 9th or late 8th, but also lacks many of their problems. Status today, it's an acceptable side-grade.
It would be one of the better editions if GW's shady business practices wouldn't put so much of a damper on the enjoyment of the game.
That said, what absolutely has lost its soul is dakka itself. Where it was once the source for 40k news and rumors, getting answers to rules problems, getting competitive list advice and talking about tactics, it has become contaminated by nurgle's rot and shriveled to an empty husk full of self-hatred. These days rumors are late by days or even missed completely since all the rumormongers have been driven out by the toxic community, YMDC is an unmoderated mess full of people who respond without even bothering to read the rules and any talk about the game ends in the same viciouss circle because the majority of posters is completely out of touch as they don't even play the game anymore, despite desperately claiming otherwise.
If you are looking for an answer whether everything is alive and well, you shouldn't ask at the mortuary.
Jidmah wrote: 10th is fine, games are more fun and less mentally taxing than comparable games in 9th edition, it's easier to switch between armies without doing a ton of homework first and list building doesn't consume an entire evening. It lacks the polish of 9th or late 8th, but also lacks many of their problems. Status today, it's an acceptable side-grade.
It would be one of the better editions if GW's shady business practices wouldn't put so much of a damper on the enjoyment of the game.
That said, what absolutely has lost its soul is dakka itself. Where it was once the source for 40k news and rumors, getting answers to rules problems, getting competitive list advice and talking about tactics, it has become contaminated by nurgle's rot and shriveled to an empty husk full of self-hatred.
These days rumors are late by days or even missed completely since all the rumormongers have been driven out by the toxic community, YMDC is an unmoderated mess full of people who respond without even bothering to read the rules and any talk about the game ends in the same viciouss circle because the majority of posters is completely out of touch as they don't even play the game anymore, despite desperately claiming otherwise.
If you are looking for an answer whether everything is alive and well, you shouldn't ask at the mortuary.
Being a side grade to 8e or 9e is akin to a un mothballed T-80 lacking its gun as a side grade to the options of lacking an engine or transmission. While it may be able to move, I have higher standards than a Russian quartermaster and prefer something running all of those components. Shady business practices by GW have little to do with the game being so bad it doesn't even meet the mark of being a wargame anymore on account of being devoid of tactics or strategy. That's why 10e is bad, and 9e, and 8e, and 7e, arguably some prior editions as well to that list. It's not because of shady business practices which don't even matter if you don't buy anything from GW anymore to play the game.
I was looking at the Marine Codex today, and it's weird to see that the fluff is completely disconnected from the rules.
There's a section going over the various roles Marine units play in the structure of a Marine army, and it lists a half dozen units that simply aren't in the Codex anymore (from Bikes to Assault Squads to Land Speeders). In the Successor Chapters section one Chapter highlights their heavy use of Thunderfire Cannons, also not in the Codex anymore. There's a whole two paragraphs (with a sub-heading) dedicated to Servitors, and how they accompany Tech-Marines... also not in the Codex. It's like the fluff section of this book was written long before it was decided to simply eliminate some of the longest standing units in 40k.
I think 10th is a far better game than 8th or 9th (and 7th and 6th!), but 40k itself is having its soul drained away by the disconnect between the people making the miniatures, the ones making the fluff, and the ones making the rules. They don't appear to collaborate in any way.
The silo'd nature of GW's design process, the competitive (if not downright toxic) attitudes between departments, all drain 40k's soul. The reduction in options that came through NMNR, the restrictions on options to only what's on the sprue, the (new for 10th!) method of restricting unit structure by the physical boxes: all these things stifle creativity. The design philosophy of the miniatures has changed to emphasise this lack of creativity and the reduction of options. There are still people here who can't grasp the massive differences between this kit and this kit vs this kit and this kit. The rules we have now are reflective of these paradigm shifts, no the cause of them.
As for Dakka? I've been here for a long time. I don't see any significant change. Dakka was always the page that dealt with Warhammer and GW realistically, without any of the artificial nonsense of Bolter & Chainsword, or the rampant forced positivity of Portent (or whatever it turned into... Warseer?). Its endurance is its strength. People who think it's turned into a toxic mess might be the problem.
I will insist that 10 very different monopose bodies offer more variety than matching 4-5 pretty similar sets of legs to 4-5 pretty similar torsos (that have very limited rotation before they start looking like their joints are dislocated)
Unfortunately it seems GW is switching to only 5 monopose bodies doubled up per box as standard
As for Dakka? I've been here for a long time. I don't see any significant change. Dakka was always the page that dealt with Warhammer and GW realistically, without any of the artificial nonsense of Bolter & Chainsword, or the rampante forced positivity of Portent (or whatever it turned into). It's endurance is its strength. People who think it's turned into a toxic mess might be the problem.
I mean i've come to dakka since it was on EZboard with flash menus. It's always been the "tell it how it is" place, which means if GW is doing something bad (which, sadly, happens more often than not) people will call it out. It's not state-mandated "be positive about GW because it's why we're all here" propaganda like TGA or Warseer was, or B&C where you get a bit of both but the mods take the whole Space Marine/Inquisition thing a bit too serious.
Part of why I keep coming here is because I know I can hear opinions as they are, not sugarcoated or people kept from saying their views because it's supposed to be pro-GW.
I do think part of the issue is the way rules have gone since 8th, and especially 10th, are hollow. All the neat things have been lost, entire models have been removed/Legends (which, let's face it, may as well be removed). It's sterile. It doesn't FEEL like 40k, I think that's the issue. If you went and renamed every datasheet some some generic name ("Space Knights" et all), it would be the same game. Nothing about the lifeless feel of 10th, despite the core rules being solid, gives a vibe of 40k. Now don't get me wrong, I'm getting interested in things like Grimdark Future, but 40k shouldn't feel like that, it should FEEL like 40k with all the variety and depth. And right now they don't.
I'm not gonna lie and say it could be nostalgia. I played from 1997, up through the editions. But even 3rd which was grossly simplified from 2nd still felt like 40k. 10th does not. It feels like a third party Not-40k revamp, but with the GW stamp. And not for the better.
I feel the amount of discussion on Dakka about 40kas actual 40k has declined considerably. I don't think that's strictly a 10th edition phenomenon, it seemed to happen over the course of 9th.
I mean not everyone wants to talk about the current state of the game - or the competitive meta. But that used to be a significant topic of conversation that is now seems almost absent. I posted in mid-August about the seemingly lack of outrage on Dakka about Eldar imbalance (which would have previously have provoked thread after thread). To which the replies were "I don't play tournament games", "Eldar are always OP" and "if you want to see outrage, go on Discord". All of this is arguably fair - but it didn't stop the forum talking about it in the past.
In a similar way if an army was underperforming we'd have discussions on what should change to make them better (which, to perhaps be cutting, were I feel more sophisticated than "A Sister of Battle killed some Necrons in a cinematic so they should get another S3 AP- attack.") I'm not sure Dakka is strictly the "cause" - but many buffs GW has brought into the game have, in some form or other, been discussed on these forums ahead of time. I think that was due to being in touch with the game. Today I feel there's essentially nothing like that - especially in General Discussion (there's occasionally more in the Tactics threads).
This sort of conversation was occasionally adversarial - but now both sides seem to have vacated for other forums. So instead we are seemingly left with a lot of talk about theoreticals and "Wasn't it better in the old days". This always existed too - but it wasn't the whole forum. And arguably as those old days become over 7, 15, or 25+ years ago, it becomes ever less relevant or accurate (since much of this is increasingly ancient memory) to the game today.
To be more on topic - I think 10th is a bit soulless just because several of the Indexes are very limited. There isn't any soul in say the DE Index because there just isn't much in the DE Index full stop. The idea that your army can be radically different because you took a few units of Wyches rather than say Wracks might have sort of flown in 3rd, but it doesn't hold up today. But GW will always add new things - even small changes have made some factions that seemed dead on arrival more interesting.
Jidmah wrote: 10th is fine, games are more fun and less mentally taxing than comparable games in 9th edition, it's easier to switch between armies without doing a ton of homework first and list building doesn't consume an entire evening. It lacks the polish of 9th or late 8th, but also lacks many of their problems. Status today, it's an acceptable side-grade.
It would be one of the better editions if GW's shady business practices wouldn't put so much of a damper on the enjoyment of the game.
That said, what absolutely has lost its soul is dakka itself. Where it was once the source for 40k news and rumors, getting answers to rules problems, getting competitive list advice and talking about tactics, it has become contaminated by nurgle's rot and shriveled to an empty husk full of self-hatred. These days rumors are late by days or even missed completely since all the rumormongers have been driven out by the toxic community, YMDC is an unmoderated mess full of people who respond without even bothering to read the rules and any talk about the game ends in the same viciouss circle because the majority of posters is completely out of touch as they don't even play the game anymore, despite desperately claiming otherwise.
If you are looking for an answer whether everything is alive and well, you shouldn't ask at the mortuary.
Isn't that selfcontradictory with what follows?
And by the same meassure your analogy isn't apt, because funnily enough Dakka is still surprisingly alive and well, something many other boards or reddits can't really say anymore, especially the smaller FB groups aswell. But then again that is a symptome imo of the practices that you reverence here, that have driven away many pillars of the community and replaced them with people that have a lower attention span. NVM that i think the ease of access on the latter plattforms makes it so that the bloodletting isnt' as abvious as it is on the forums.
I rekon in part the desilusion of these practices have in part lead to massive blood letting so to speak both of old veterans and new players as retention has dropped severly f.e. where i am from.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I was looking at the Marine Codex today, and it's weird to see that the fluff is completely disconnected from the rules.
There's a section going over the various roles Marine units play in the structure of a Marine army, and it lists a half dozen units that simply aren't in the Codex anymore (from Bikes to Assault Squads to Land Speeders). In the Successor Chapters section one Chapter highlights their heavy use of Thunderfire Cannons, also not in the Codex anymore. There's a whole two paragraphs (with a sub-heading) dedicated to Servitors, and how they accompany Tech-Marines... also not in the Codex. It's like the fluff section of this book was written long before it was decided to simply eliminate some of the longest standing units in 40k.
I think 10th is a far better game than 8th or 9th (and 7th and 6th!), but 40k itself is having its soul drained away by the disconnect between the people making the miniatures, the ones making the fluff, and the ones making the rules. They don't appear to collaborate in any way.
The silo'd nature of GW's design process, the competitive (if not downright toxic) attitudes between departments, all drain 40k's soul. The reduction in options that came through NMNR, the restrictions on options to only what's on the sprue, the (new for 10th!) method of restricting unit structure by the physical boxes: all these things stifle creativity. The design philosophy of the miniatures has changed to emphasise this lack of creativity and the reduction of options. There are still people here who can't grasp the massive differences between this kit and this kit vs this kit and this kit. The rules we have now are reflective of these paradigm shifts, no the cause of them.
As for Dakka? I've been here for a long time. I don't see any significant change. Dakka was always the page that dealt with Warhammer and GW realistically, without any of the artificial nonsense of Bolter & Chainsword, or the rampante forced positivity of Portent (or whatever it turned into... Warseer?). It's endurance is its strength. People who think it's turned into a toxic mess might be the problem.
Sounds like copy/paste laziness for them to be including fluff on units that no longer exist like that. That being said, bikes, assault squads, and land speeders all exist - they are just called outriders, assault intercessors, and storm speeders now. Thunderfire Cannons have been replaced (in my view) by Firestrike servo turrets. Servitors are gone, but Primaris Techmarines are a thing, etc. It would have been very easy to revise and fix with just a modicum of effort.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, I was under the impression that warseer was dead. Im workblocked from accessing it, but when i google warseer the site doesn't come up and instead I get about a punch of posts on dakka, reddit, and elsewhere about how its dead.
chaos0xomega wrote: Also, I was under the impression that warseer was dead. Im workblocked from accessing it, but when i google warseer the site doesn't come up and instead I get about a punch of posts on dakka, reddit, and elsewhere about how its dead.
It is dead now (warseer.net actually redirects to BOLS of all places). But those of us who remember, remember ironfisted mods (Wintermute I think the dude's name was) who would delete/ban anything negative about GW or even remotely discussing another game in a Warhammer thread (I recall I had some posts deleted for comparing WHFB to KoW or something as "off topic"). It was probably the worst place to be critical of GW, outside of a brief stint at TGA where they literally had a post saying "Remember we're all here because of GW, so no negativity" to where I actually got a warning directly from the owner that I was being too critical of GW by lamenting AOS' balance at the time and I needed to stop or I'd risk being banned. Was basically a cult (and not surprising since the TGA guys have/had ties to the GW studio)
H.B.M.C. wrote: There are still people here who can't grasp the massive differences between this kit and this kit vs this kit and this kit. The rules we have now are reflective of these paradigm shifts, no the cause of them.
Honestly, i think the DG models look much better than the TS ones (said as a TS main btw). Yes they are monopose but for the plague marines at least, theres not a particularly standout pose that is noticeable at a glance when looking at an army (worst example of that is the labcoat/gimp poxwalkers that stand out massively). And DG are still somewhat customisable too; Heads, shoulderpads and backpacks are interchangeable (and heads can be reposed simply by cutting the pin that gives them a default position. You can end up with almost any combination of marines really.
I'd take that over "this dude's arms are slightly raised or lowered"
As for the rules being dictated by whats in the kit, yes it's dumb, resolving the attacks of plague marines is a pain in the ass nowadays, but without 60pts of free wargear per 80pts squad, they'd suck sadly.
Jidmah wrote: 10th is fine, games are more fun and less mentally taxing than comparable games in 9th edition, it's easier to switch between armies without doing a ton of homework first and list building doesn't consume an entire evening. It lacks the polish of 9th or late 8th, but also lacks many of their problems. Status today, it's an acceptable side-grade.
It would be one of the better editions if GW's shady business practices wouldn't put so much of a damper on the enjoyment of the game.
That said, what absolutely has lost its soul is dakka itself. Where it was once the source for 40k news and rumors, getting answers to rules problems, getting competitive list advice and talking about tactics, it has become contaminated by nurgle's rot and shriveled to an empty husk full of self-hatred.
These days rumors are late by days or even missed completely since all the rumormongers have been driven out by the toxic community, YMDC is an unmoderated mess full of people who respond without even bothering to read the rules and any talk about the game ends in the same viciouss circle because the majority of posters is completely out of touch as they don't even play the game anymore, despite desperately claiming otherwise.
If you are looking for an answer whether everything is alive and well, you shouldn't ask at the mortuary.
Sort of glad you said this, I've been putting off replying to the thread but my feeling is largely "no, but the online community has". I've seen far more negativity and nitpicking robbing the game of any joy in online discussions than ever before. Years ago 40k online was great, including Dakka, as it was a celebration of peoples creativity and loving the setting as it is, a lot more "what ifs" and "wouldn't that be great" with community made and led hype because of the absence of the official streams.
Because GW now advertise the far end of a fart reasonably well in advance, that's gone. Because the emphasis is now on organised events with GW support, it's not people working the game to what or how they like it to be. With the advent of this modern e-sports mentality, the random cool stuff is talked about less and less in place of armchair (although some people do have credentials here) game designers and marketing folk. In it's place we had half a decade or so of "competitive efficiency" talks where units were dead or the hotness with nothing else going on.
I agree on the news content though, most of the 10th rumours and chaos Marine rumours in 9th were in part me and a few others bringing them over from B&C. Which I've stopped doing, because frankly it's not worth it. Poor ClockworkChris who had the Chaos info on B&C got hounded out of here and gave up after a couple of weeks due to the way people spoke to them and just shat on everything.
Largely I'd also say the people touting the durability and resilience of Dakka currently are the same people I would consider to likely be firing off negative comments and sometimes being antagonistic about whatever it is that GW does on the whole.
Fun fact - I've been told to stop being so negative on B&C, yet I'm a white knight here with the same opinions.
Yeah, I am also a Warseer-refugee, that place was my home for a number of years after I was banned from 40ko for absolutely no reason at all (as in literally, I got a message from a mod one day, Mr. Peanut I think his name was, about how he had been wanting to ban me for a long time and that I was no longer welcome. To this day I have no idea what specifically enabled him to do so, as I recall I hadn't even posted in the couple days preceding the ban so it was out of left field).
One day I inevitably got banned from warseer too after calling out the mods for their heavy handed moderation. Ended up here on dakka where the mods are at least somewhat reasonable and also far more tolerant of the bslol.
Wayniac wrote: I mean i've come to dakka since it was on EZboard with flash menus. It's always been the "tell it how it is" place, which means if GW is doing something bad (which, sadly, happens more often than not) people will call it out. It's not state-mandated "be positive about GW because it's why we're all here" propaganda like TGA or Warseer was, or B&C where you get a bit of both but the mods take the whole Space Marine/Inquisition thing a bit too serious.
Part of why I keep coming here is because I know I can hear opinions as they are, not sugarcoated or people kept from saying their views because it's supposed to be pro-GW.
.
There's 'not sugarcosting things' and there's being bitter and negative - you might see it as folks 'saying things as they are' but too often, it's less that and more some people are just determined to be miserable and are looking for excuses to be angry to the point that everything is framed in as-negative a perspective as possible. I remember one poster going off on one because of the halo motif on stormcast helmets - it was 'proof' of gw's incompetence and how put of touch they were. Their reasoning? Most kids are atheist these days....
Stewing in too much of that for too long or looking for affirmation of ones own frustrations is just as unhealthy as warseers forced positivity.
I find dakka often leans towards stewimg and negstive for the sake of negstive to the point I wonder if those posters hobby should be better described as being angry about the hobby rather than any actual aspect of the hobby itself.
I do think part of the issue is the way rules have gone since 8th, and especially 10th, are hollow. All the neat things have been lost, entire models have been removed/Legends (which, let's face it, may as well be removed). It's sterile. It doesn't FEEL like 40k, I think that's the issue. If you went and renamed every datasheet some some generic name ("Space Knights" et all), it would be the same game. Nothing about the lifeless feel of 10th, despite the core rules being solid, gives a vibe of 40k. Now don't get me wrong, I'm getting interested in things like Grimdark Future, but 40k shouldn't feel like that, it should FEEL like 40k with all the variety and depth. And right now they don't.
I'm not gonna lie and say it could be nostalgia. I played from 1997, up through the editions. But even 3rd which was grossly simplified from 2nd still felt like 40k. 10th does not. It feels like a third party Not-40k revamp, but with the GW stamp. And not for the better.
OK I'll bite because I am curious wayniac. If 10th doesnt 'feel' like 40k to you, What does/should 40k 'feel' like? What makes 40k40k?
I've been following dakka since 6th edition or so and always regarded it as a pretty negative place. Whenever there were GW news that we liked in our group I took a look at dakka to see what anyone can possibly dislike about it, and dakka always found something to complain about Since 8th you additionally have the group of people that liked the prior framework and still mourn for armour values that were practically dead since 6th introduced hull points. But, these are not restricted to dakka. Just like the people that still hate AoS because WHFB had to die for it.
To come back to the actual topic: 10th rules imo are pretty good. They get a little overshadowed by stupid corporate ideas of NMNR, pseudo Power Level and so on. Outside of crusade 9th felt more "soulless" though with its boring missions that were all the same (and even the crusade missions followeda pretty rigid symmetric style without narrative additions). It's okay that GW introduced standardized tournament missions, it's unfortunate that proper missions ever since hide behind expensive DLCs like the Vigilus books.
Deadnight wrote: OK I'll bite because I am curious wayniac. If 10th doesnt 'feel' like 40k to you, What does/should 40k 'feel' like? What makes 40k40k?
If I could properly explain that, don't you think I would have? I've played since 1997. 10th feels like a completely different game, and not in a good way, compared to the era of 3rd-7th, even 2nd. It doesn't feel like it has any of the depth or flavor of the past editions. The rules have been streamlined, but they feel more like "gutted of all flavor and made generic". I can't point to something specific other than to say it feels like if you changed all the names to generic, you'd have the exact same thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sgt. Cortez wrote: To come back to the actual topic: 10th rules imo are pretty good. They get a little overshadowed by stupid corporate ideas of NMNR, pseudo Power Level and so on. Outside of crusade 9th felt more "soulless" though with its boring missions that were all the same (and even the crusade missions followeda pretty rigid symmetric style without narrative additions). It's okay that GW introduced standardized tournament missions, it's unfortunate that proper missions ever since hide behind expensive DLCs like the Vigilus books.
And more unfortunate that people don't seem to WANT those kind of missions, even when they exist. Even the Leviathan missions, while they are really cool, are just takes on the same boring hold objectives/do secondary things missions that tournaments love, but now they're the whole game. Sure you have a few that don't use secondaries (the one in the core rules, the crusade missions, and most recently the ones in White Dwarf for their Bunker club thing) but people seem to think secondary objectives are the important part of missions, and even the ones without secondaries are still the same sort of bland objective-based mission.
I think you have got a number of different changes over time, that are either culminating now or starting to affect things all at the same time.
The setting has been roughly handled - Primaris fluff, the way they have moved the setting on, lots of the internal world building being ignored (warp travel being a big one - honestly now everyone zips all over the place), hero hammer, etc. Wins for some, loses for other fans. But its change and while you get a chance to bring people in, you risk losing them at the same time. Arguably the more mainstream you want to be to get the biggest market, the more bland/safe you have to become. The reward is sales, the risk is you lose the hard core that sustains you when your fad passes.
The game is as bad as ever. Some say worse, but honestly for me everything past 2nd is pretty poor But we had a dire period in 9th. Now it wasn't that bad, but Covid hit. Lots of players took time out. And for 40k, a game that thrives on constant engagement and has problems if people have to forget and come back (how many errata? why are these rules so naff compared to X that I have been playing, what my model bases aren't big enough anymore?). A bit like boiling frogs, fine while in the pot, object if they are put back in after 5 minutes. I lost track of the game in 9th and found it impossible to get back in. So far 10th feels like that. Its too much effort for too little reward when you read about ROFLstomp games. Its also the trend towards cards becoming a big thing to provide a tactical layer to parking lot games. Yeah it kinda works, but makes it more like a game than a wargame, further restricting the market in that direction (though arguably opening it up in the other).
That slightly safer, blander set up with art and background is reflected in models. Driven I suspect by competition concerns and by accessibility, the thing of needing multiple kits to make one squad are gone. Yes many moaned, but quite a few miss that sort of customisation. A new player will find it easier to get into the game - each box is one unit, but it removes simple customisation options that people do to get more emotionally invested in their toy soldiers.
Perhaps that is what has changed, the level of emotional investment has decreased. Changes to units, everything in box only, no inclusion of ideas from outside the plastic range, changes in background that inevitably lose people. The churn of new players has perhaps improved, we won't know, but perhaps the burn is currently higher with more of the longer term players being turn off.
The animation might have been a counterweight, but it seems to reflect the game not the background. Marines go down like chumps all the time. What for me was the outstanding animation? Astartes, fan made, very much going on the traditional background and showing marines as I always imagined them, even down to the (limitless) bullet/bolt rockets.
Deadnight wrote: OK I'll bite because I am curious wayniac. If 10th doesnt 'feel' like 40k to you, What does/should 40k 'feel' like? What makes 40k40k?
If I could properly explain that, don't you think I would have?
That's why I asked. If it can't describe what 40k.should be, it's hard to hsve a discussion on it and state why it's not that any more, it just comes across as 'change is bad, m'kay'.
Wayniac wrote: lI've played since 1997. 10th feels like a completely different game, and not in a good way, compared to the era of 3rd-7th, even 2nd.
That's because iy is a completely different game. Youre referencing a state of play from 25 years ago mate. There's a hell of a lot of things done nowadays that are hella different from hearing Oasis and Nirvana the first time in the 90s. Of course its a different game, its a different era.
If it was still the same game it was in the 80s folks would be complaining it was 'stagnant' and 'out of date' instead.
Wayniac wrote: It doesn't feel like it has any of the depth or flavor of the past editions.
In fairness, did it ever have 'depth' and 'flavour'?
or was it always just 'clunk'? Folks have been complaining about the lack of both since the game was created.
Wayniac wrote: . The rules have been streamlined, but they feel more like "gutted of all flavor and made generic". I can't point to something specific.
OK this is something tangible, thanks. While it can be done poorly (which gwnever does, ever :p)There is a benefit to streamlining the interface and content (how many flavours of 'guy in power armour and bolt gun are legitimately required in a game?) and I'm personally not a fan of flavour as represented by everything having bespoke rules - I'm more of a less is more kind of player. And 40k has always been clunky and unwieldy at the beat of times. Imo its more the 'ccg-isation' of the game and 'off-the-board' rescources/actions that are just 'gamey'. But that's been a thing since 8th.
I started playing in 2e; I played competitively from 3rd-7th. 7th killed me; yes, formations were horrible, but it was actually the Allies system - when EVERY game included the same unit of Tau Riptides sitting in the corner, regardless of what the army theoretically was, my enjoyment of the aesthetic of the game was gone. I play with miniatures because I like the physicality of the game and the spatial relations of the minis; there are better tactical simulations available online, and there are better rulesets available in the tabletop space.
I think 10th is fine. I'm ok with the reversion in 8th to "everything has a toughness score." I do think they went a little overboard on destandardization (seriously, not EVERY unit really needs a special ability for us to memorize - sometimes a Termagant should just be a Termagant). Stratagems are a bit messy at present (and not including them in the index cards for the Tyranid codex was absurd). I accept the decoupling of points from the codex, if they actually update the points in ways that make sense.
Best of all, I'm enjoying the game again. Prices have actually stabilized as plastics have gotten more detailed & sprue utilization has improved (though there are absurdities), but a $60 Hive Tyrant today isn't any worse than what we were paying in 5th.
GW's Dunning Kruger-style embrace of the tournament scene has also lessened this game. I just hated the missions in 9th - all some variation of where you put the objective markers with no variety or flavour to the rules - and whilst I like the random secondary stuff in 10th, it seems that that's the only way to do missions because that's how they decided tournaments work.
Their simply laughable "Metawatch" articles only further emphasise how little they understand what they're doing, touting "win rates" like it was the single metric for a successful game.
And then this flows onto their products, like the change of board size and acting like that's some great new standard, even though it exists purely because of the limitations of their packaging and had absolutely nothing to do with game balance or whatever (and that people still think that the recommended board sizes are "better" for the game).
chaos0xomega wrote: That being said, bikes, assault squads, and land speeders all exist - they are just called outriders, assault intercessors, and storm speeders now.
The book specifically lists them as separate entities. It doesn't just say "Bikes", meaning you could go "Oh, well they mean Outriders!", it has Bikes and Outriders listed separetely. Attack Bikes and ATVs. And so on. It's very frustrating, as you can see what this book could have been before some dimwit higher up made the decision to clean house on a significant portion of most Marine players' collections.
VladimirHerzog wrote: As for the rules being dictated by whats in the kit, yes it's dumb, resolving the attacks of plague marines is a pain in the ass nowadays, but without 60pts of free wargear per 80pts squad, they'd suck sadly.
Yeah, and that's the direct result of the kit, regardless of whether they "look better" or not.
If the Plague Marine kit was more like the Rubric kit, maybe they wouldn't be as "dynamic", but they also wouldn't be this slab of set models with set rules that offer little to no variation whatsoever.
chaos0xomega wrote: One day I inevitably got banned from warseer too after calling out the mods for their heavy handed moderation. Ended up here on dakka where the mods are at least somewhat reasonable and also far more tolerant of the bslol.
A common story, a few Warseer mods could not stand anyone being more popular than them, so they would ban the most helpful, creative and engaged members over trivial or even made up transgressions. I got away with a lot as I had been a member since 2000, ran the community FAQ and such, but in the end a mod just straight up lied to stick me the final strike
VladimirHerzog wrote: As for the rules being dictated by whats in the kit, yes it's dumb, resolving the attacks of plague marines is a pain in the ass nowadays, but without 60pts of free wargear per 80pts squad, they'd suck sadly.
Yeah, and that's the direct result of the kit, regardless of whether they "look better" or not.
If the Plague Marine kit was more like the Rubric kit, maybe they wouldn't be as "dynamic", but they also wouldn't be this slab of set models with set rules that offer little to no variation whatsoever.
Plague marines have actual variation tho..... unlike rubrics
To be more on topic - I think 10th is a bit soulless just because several of the Indexes are very limited. There isn't any soul in say the DE Index because there just isn't much in the DE Index full stop. The idea that your army can be radically different because you took a few units of Wyches rather than say Wracks might have sort of flown in 3rd, but it doesn't hold up today. But GW will always add new things - even small changes have made some factions that seemed dead on arrival more interesting.
The issue here, though, is that there is no reason (unless you count optimism so blind you'd need a guide dog) to expect the codices will improve this.
Tell me, has the SM codex added units or removed them?
Indeed, is there anything to suggest that lost options will be put back in the respective books?
Can you even name an edition since 5th in which a Dark Eldar codex has added options, rather than removing them?
Do you think GW will magically reverse their NMNR policy? What about their 'unit loadouts must match the box' rule?
Point being, it might not be so bad if there was a reasonable expectation that the codices would put the soul back into the game. Many people tolerated 8th being very bland during the index era. However, there is nothing to suggest that the codices will do anything of the sort (and GW is certainly in no rush to release them all and prove us wrong).
Wayniac wrote: 8th felt more interesting as a fresh new edition than 10th. I feel they went overboard on the "simplified, not simple" thing this time around.
This comes back round to the iterative thing, I don't really consider 10th a brand new ground up game, it's just 9th with a few tweaks imo.
Wayniac wrote: 8th felt more interesting as a fresh new edition than 10th. I feel they went overboard on the "simplified, not simple" thing this time around.
This comes back round to the iterative thing, I don't really consider 10th a brand new ground up game, it's just 9th with a few tweaks imo.
Ignoring the fact nothing was backwards compatible and they upended the entire statlines. Nope. Same edition with a few tweaks apparently. 10th was a rework from the foundations.
It's about the style of miniature design. Minis were designed one way, and then suddenly were designed another. The Thousand Sons were simply the last of the old, the Plague Marines the first of the new.
RaptorusRex wrote: I think that Dakka tends to be salty, but its criticisms don’t come because the users hate the idea of 40k, but because they love it.
People that don't care don't sit on forums writing about things. But at some point certain talks are just dead . After two waves on nerfs eldar are the top army with 60% win rate, what talk about game mechanics, especialy for non top GT players can be done in reality? Not much. 10th is even more formulaic then 9th and 8th was. People can litteraly write out openings for armies, and while the good armies have multiple ones, sometimes depending on match ups, other armies (to less good ones) often have one way to open. And if one plays enough games, then bar some extrem luck going either way, by the end of turn 2 the game is done, because the math tells who will go where, score what etc. Maybe the margine of VP difference is not certain, but who wins or not is. And for not tournament games that is rather crucial, because results from prior games don't carry over.
The salt does come from many source. People would like to play w40k, they spend their money on it, and time, because of the paint requierments. But when your army was a RW or WS army and GW just legended half your list, and there is no replacment, people are not going to be happy.
Wayniac wrote: 8th felt more interesting as a fresh new edition than 10th. I feel they went overboard on the "simplified, not simple" thing this time around.
This comes back round to the iterative thing, I don't really consider 10th a brand new ground up game, it's just 9th with a few tweaks imo.
Ignoring the fact nothing was backwards compatible and they upended the entire statlines. Nope. Same edition with a few tweaks apparently. 10th was a rework from the foundations.
They moved the WS/BS to the weapon instead of the operator, which they could have and did artificially accomplish in 9th (powerfist hitting on a 4+ is so different to a ws 3+ subtract 1 powerfist!). They moved a load of rules from slightly renamed copy/pastes to USR aaaand that's about it really? Oh they simplified cover back down.
The issue here, though, is that there is no reason (unless you count optimism so blind you'd need a guide dog) to expect the codices will improve this.
Tell me, has the SM codex added units or removed them?
Indeed, is there anything to suggest that lost options will be put back in the respective books?
Can you even name an edition since 5th in which a Dark Eldar codex has added options, rather than removing them?
Do you think GW will magically reverse their NMNR policy? What about their 'unit loadouts must match the box' rule?
I can't say about editions pre 8th, but both in 8th, 9th and 10th the dark eldar line had the entire CWE codex added by virtue of Inari existing. Isn't right now the main way to play DE, is to add some cheap chaff wyches and then take the DE tank, and supplement them with the fate dice etc that Inari get by using the CWE detachment?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dudeface 811846 11600527 wrote:
They moved the WS/BS to the weapon instead of the operator, which they could have and did artificially accomplish in 9th (powerfist hitting on a 4+ is so different to a ws 3+ subtract 1 powerfist!). They moved a load of rules from slightly renamed copy/pastes to USR aaaand that's about it really? Oh they simplified cover back down.
So yes, total rework from the ground up.
Depending on what ever one considers it an error while writing rules or an actual rules change planed by GW, they did more then copy past and move around 9th ed WS/BS numbers. the GKGM were not hitting stuff on +4 in 9th ed and in 10th they do. Same with adjustments to BS on GK heavy weapons, while forgetting that GK heavy weapons are neither heavy nor assault, making the BS adjustments on weapons hard to understand nerfs.
Wayniac wrote: 8th felt more interesting as a fresh new edition than 10th. I feel they went overboard on the "simplified, not simple" thing this time around.
8th index was very much a baby with the bathwater oversimplication imo. The game lost so much of the positional gameplay, terrain mechanics, directional cover (cover in general) and the tapering off effects that area of effect weapons tended to have as the battle went on. It turned into mathhammering the best blobs of damage dealers being screened by lines of cheap bodies.
The rampant bloat of later 8th and 9th was directly resulting from the base game being so bare bones that it had no design space to make units feel different. Almost all of the soft factors that units had was gone so it all boiled down to the hard factors which again gets really mathhammery.
Sadly I just don't think 10th expanded the core game enough to avoid the same pitfalls.
GW is going towards more balance to please the "tournament players". This also means less randomness in the game and less difference between armies.
Where is my Shokk attack gun with discussion what the template actually hit, where it scattered to, when to roll the strength and being able to remove any model from play when hit or put you in close combat with the target you're shooting at?
It is gone, because GW now caters to the players who want clear rules, with less randomness, less room for discussion, being able to better calculate the outcome of an attack.
I don't know the size of the different player groups (more certain results vs randomness/differences liking players). I'm not saying one is good and one is bad.
What I do see more of the same across the board and less... let's call it entertainment. So for me, yeah, it is draining the soul from 40K. Much less of a whacky game, more going towards mathhammer.
GW is going towards more balance to please the "tournament players". This also means less randomness in the game and less difference between armies.
Where is my Shokk attack gun with discussion what the template actually hit, where it scattered to, when to roll the strength and being able to remove any model from play when hit or put you in close combat with the target you're shooting at?
It is gone, because GW now caters to the players who want clear rules, with less randomness, less room for discussion, being able to better calculate the outcome of an attack.
I don't know the size of the different player groups (more certain results vs randomness/differences liking players). I'm not saying one is good and one is bad.
What I do see more of the same across the board and less... let's call it entertainment. So for me, yeah, it is draining the soul from 40K. Much less of a whacky game, more going towards mathhammer.
The big problem there is that the tournament players are the loudest although the smallest minority. Look at how many content creators and other influencers who think because they have a YouTube channel that means they have authority in their opinion are out there talking nonsense about competitive gaming only. It's no wonder that GW thinks that's the biggest group of people to listen to because all of them are talking on pedestals as though they speak for the masses
I mean my definition of why 40k doesn't feel like 40k is that it doesn't actually feel "real". (In the sense of playing minis that actually exist in universe, not real to our universe).
Playing an army in 4e "felt" like playing that army in the setting. There was a clear tether between rules and abstractions:
"assault cannons are rending because the absurd rate of fire tears into armor material in a unique way"
"Ld represents command and control - build a vox network to extend your C2 from your officer - but then losing your officer can be crippling, so better have a 2iC!" Etc.
Now?
"Oath of Moment = reroll to hit. Because Space Marines are really cool, but only against one enemy unit at a time, and only the units that don't already reroll to hit - they are already maximum coolness and can't get any cooler"
"This Detachment turns all of your weapons to assault, because of there's one thing that affects how heavy and hard a weapon is to use on the move, it's the administrative organization you've got your men split into"
"Tank commanders can't give orders to Baneblades because if the Lord High Marshal General Chief Commander Hero Man is absent, Baneblade herds are famous for being uncontrollably wild"
"Exterminator Autocannons give every other unit in the army improved penetration against the target because they just shoot SO MUCH. And then the Punisher that shoots more than twice as much does mortal wounds to infantry, because SHUT UP LOOK AT THE COOL ABILITIES GUYS! EVERY UNIT HAS ONE!"
Kinda just sounds like you're really bitter and are actively looking for bad or goofy reasons to hate those rules in most cases.
You can come up with a positive justification for the things you like but can't imagine anything that you don't like possibly having any sort of positive or acceptable aspect.
You have some valid points but then drown them out with others that just make you look like a ranting weirdo. I totally agree that Superheavies not getting Tank Orders is weird but then you ruin it with the hyperbole and all-caps rage.
Vankraken wrote: The rampant bloat of later 8th and 9th was directly resulting from the base game being so bare bones that it had no design space to make units feel different. Almost all of the soft factors that units had was gone so it all boiled down to the hard factors which again gets really mathhammery.
Sadly I just don't think 10th expanded the core game enough to avoid the same pitfalls.
I think that's a very good appraisal- particularly the point about soft factors. When Rapid Fire meant you had to pick between shooting or charging, Assault had value that couldn't be neatly expressed with math. When you could charge a unit, kill only part of the unit, break it, and wipe it out with Sweeping Advance, that let melee units punch well above their on-paper weight and rewarded stacking factors to make that morale test fail- again, not something you can boil down to expected damage versus durability. The old AP system had its issues, but it set hard breakpoints that encouraged a rock-paper-scissors approach to weapon-target pairing rather than AP-1 or AP-2 being all-around good against everything. Morale made armies like Guard reliant on their officers, and susceptible to being broken without killing them to a man. All things that impacted decision-making beyond raw damage optimization.
For me, the 'soul' of 40K was a light beer-and-pretzels wargame with the zany sci-fi/fantasy stuff layered on top. It was exactly the sort of game you'd get by taking a bunch of guys who had grown up playing WW2 historicals and then having them design sci-fi. Over time it slowly bloated in complexity and cognitive load until being hard reset by the reimagining in 8th- but in the interest of simplifying the core mechanics, it stripped out and pared down a lot of those mechanics that reflected its historical origins and made it feel like a wargame.
I don't hate that 40K isn't what it used to be. Things change. If I do want to play a WW2 wargame where things like morale and suppression matter I have more options than ever before. Heck, if I want a game more akin to 6th-7th Ed 40K but with some modern iteration, strong morale focus, and a historical styling, HH2.0 is right there.
I just wish that when they keep trying to reboot 40K they'd actually reboot it, not just keep slapping popular modern mechanics onto what is still fundamentally a 1980s wargame structure. Playing Grimdark Future more has made me feel that all the bloat and chrome in 40K is ultimately a lot less impactful than basic things like activation structure, core unit capabilities, and combat resolution mechanics, all things that have remained largely unchanged in 40K since its inception.
I mean he's not wrong. Before even 8th edition things felt like they "belonged" in the context of the setting. Now it's random game elements applied for the sake of being game elements in a game, and making them feel like they're part of the setting is lost.
Gert wrote: Kinda just sounds like you're really bitter and are actively looking for bad or goofy reasons to hate those rules in most cases.
It seems to me that he's articulating a difference between special rules used as a means of representing the fluff in cases where the core stats don't suffice, versus giving units abilities for the sake of gameplay effect that don't necessarily come from the fluff at all.
They're different approaches to game design- and highlight a difference in design philosophies as the game has evolved.
Gert wrote: Kinda just sounds like you're really bitter and are actively looking for bad or goofy reasons to hate those rules in most cases.
You can come up with a positive justification for the things you like but can't imagine anything that you don't like possibly having any sort of positive or acceptable aspect.
You have some valid points but then drown them out with others that just make you look like a ranting weirdo. I totally agree that Superheavies not getting Tank Orders is weird but then you ruin it with the hyperbole and all-caps rage.
So your argument is that I'm right but should be nicer about it?
catbarf wrote: It seems to me that he's articulating a difference between special rules used as a means of representing the fluff in cases where the core stats don't suffice, versus giving units abilities for the sake of gameplay effect that don't necessarily come from the fluff at all.
They're different approaches to game design- and highlight a difference in design philosophies as the game has evolved.
And the point I was making is that they aren't actually articulating that very well because for every rule they can make a reason for liking previous editions and justify it with the background, I could absolutely do the same for either the current edition of 40k or could do the opposite for older editions.
Take Mob Rule. Orks got Fearless (one of the best rules in the game) if they were over 10 models because the more Orks there are, the more likely they are to fight. But that rule comes into effect if you have 11 Ork Boyz then disappears when you have 10. For the difference of one whole Ork Boy, the unit gets an amazing rule and loses it as soon as that model dies. Suddenly, the Orks are cowards again because one Ork died which is utterly contrary to how Orks actually think. Now if Mob Rule was more of an aura, say by having multiple units close together and then those units started to die off, then yes the rule would make sense. But losing one Ork and therefore losing an extremely powerful rule is silly.
How about ATSKNF? Space Marines get it but only if you like the Emperor because otherwise, you aren't a Real Space Marine, even though you literally live in actual Hell and have to forever deal with the denizens of actual Hell. Is your Leadership any better because you literally live in Hell and have pretty much passed the point of even feeling fear anymore? No that would be silly. All Not Real Space Marines have to be massive cowards because they don't like the Emperor.
vipoid wrote: Point being, it might not be so bad if there was a reasonable expectation that the codices would put the soul back into the game. Many people tolerated 8th being very bland during the index era. However, there is nothing to suggest that the codices will do anything of the sort (and GW is certainly in no rush to release them all and prove us wrong).
I feel SM is a bad choice because I think Marines have sucked since I started in the hobby circa 1996. (Primaris are still better models than stuff from 2008~ though).
I'm not sure DE can be saved, because I don't think there's anyone at GW that *gets* DE. But its not impossible DE are earmarked some big release in 2025, which will give them some new units for the first time in over a decade (and, in most cases, 25 years). Hope, as they say, springs eternal.
I think the changes to say DG and Tau have taken them from a similar position to a much better one.
I don't know for example whether the Tyranid Detachments have really opened up the Tyranid Codex. But I think its a significantly better position than DE.
Because I'm a masochist, I'm trying to start an Ad Mech force. Go stilt troopers go.
Gert wrote: Kinda just sounds like you're really bitter and are actively looking for bad or goofy reasons to hate those rules in most cases.
It seems to me that he's articulating a difference between special rules used as a means of representing the fluff in cases where the core stats don't suffice, versus giving units abilities for the sake of gameplay effect that don't necessarily come from the fluff at all.
They're different approaches to game design- and highlight a difference in design philosophies as the game has evolved.
To nitpick, the example given was assault cannons having rending due to their immense rate of fire, hence had a 1/6 chance of negating an armour save. Their fluff hasn't changed and they still have a 1/6 chance of a negating an armour save. The difference now from my viewpoint is that it's more of a "game", with less flavour text and cut outs with little narrative flairs. Instead it's a profile with the numbers dumped on you, no flavour text etc. Which robs the entries of their feel.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I mean my definition of why 40k doesn't feel like 40k is that it doesn't actually feel "real". (In the sense of playing minis that actually exist in universe, not real to our universe).
Playing an army in 4e "felt" like playing that army in the setting. There was a clear tether between rules and abstractions:
"assault cannons are rending because the absurd rate of fire tears into armor material in a unique way"
"Ld represents command and control - build a vox network to extend your C2 from your officer - but then losing your officer can be crippling, so better have a 2iC!" Etc.
Now?
"Oath of Moment = reroll to hit. Because Space Marines are really cool, but only against one enemy unit at a time, and only the units that don't already reroll to hit - they are already maximum coolness and can't get any cooler"
"This Detachment turns all of your weapons to assault, because of there's one thing that affects how heavy and hard a weapon is to use on the move, it's the administrative organization you've got your men split into"
"Tank commanders can't give orders to Baneblades because if the Lord High Marshal General Chief Commander Hero Man is absent, Baneblade herds are famous for being uncontrollably wild"
"Exterminator Autocannons give every other unit in the army improved penetration against the target because they just shoot SO MUCH. And then the Punisher that shoots more than twice as much does mortal wounds to infantry, because SHUT UP LOOK AT THE COOL ABILITIES GUYS! EVERY UNIT HAS ONE!"
Exalted for the laughs You do bring some good points though..
Reading these past few pages makes me think that one possible explanation for feeling that the game is "losing its soul" might stem from the many small changes that have increasingly lead the game from a "creative sandbox" into a more fixed, standardized "e-sports" type of game.. like you say, there is less and less room for customization, less whacky, swingy oddball things that might happen. Add up enough of such lessening of (viable) options, and you are suddenly lessening peoples investment into their game.. it becomes just another "shooter" you have fun with for a while before moving on to the next one, unless you become obsessed with it and want to become the best esports player ever torneying it out with other like minded obsessed esporters
Not saying this is how it is, just getting this kind of thoughts skimming theough some of the recent replies
catbarf wrote: It seems to me that he's articulating a difference between special rules used as a means of representing the fluff in cases where the core stats don't suffice, versus giving units abilities for the sake of gameplay effect that don't necessarily come from the fluff at all.
They're different approaches to game design- and highlight a difference in design philosophies as the game has evolved.
And the point I was making is that they aren't actually articulating that very well because for every rule they can make a reason for liking previous editions and justify it with the background, I could absolutely do the same for either the current edition of 40k or could do the opposite for older editions.
Take Mob Rule. Orks got Fearless (one of the best rules in the game) if they were over 10 models because the more Orks there are, the more likely they are to fight. But that rule comes into effect if you have 11 Ork Boyz then disappears when you have 10. For the difference of one whole Ork Boy, the unit gets an amazing rule and loses it as soon as that model dies. Suddenly, the Orks are cowards again because one Ork died which is utterly contrary to how Orks actually think. Now if Mob Rule was more of an aura, say by having multiple units close together and then those units started to die off, then yes the rule would make sense. But losing one Ork and therefore losing an extremely powerful rule is silly.
How about ATSKNF? Space Marines get it but only if you like the Emperor because otherwise, you aren't a Real Space Marine, even though you literally live in actual Hell and have to forever deal with the denizens of actual Hell. Is your Leadership any better because you literally live in Hell and have pretty much passed the point of even feeling fear anymore? No that would be silly. All Not Real Space Marines have to be massive cowards because they don't like the Emperor.
Do you get my point?
Except you missed my point entirely.
It is clear what those abstractions represent - Orcs are fearless in large numbers, and Space Marines are almost fearless themselves.
It is not clear what Oath of Moment represents in the lore. At best you can say "Marines try harder when they're under an oath". I guess they don't try very hard unless they swear to though, like a morally convicted slacker.
What is the tether between the lore and Exterminator autocannons making the rest of the army -1 rend against their target? Why does the Punisher do Devastating Wounds to infantry? Are these abstractions of the same phenomenon?
What do IG orders represent? Why do they work the way they do? Is this really how the Chain of Command in the Imperial Guard functions in the universe, or is it just a game mechanic bolted on because why not?
My point was that there is no obvious tether to the lore. Your examples actually *provide* obvious tethers, even if they are badly implemented.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I mean my definition of why 40k doesn't feel like 40k is that it doesn't actually feel "real". (In the sense of playing minis that actually exist in universe, not real to our universe).
Playing an army in 4e "felt" like playing that army in the setting. There was a clear tether between rules and abstractions:
"assault cannons are rending because the absurd rate of fire tears into armor material in a unique way"
"Ld represents command and control - build a vox network to extend your C2 from your officer - but then losing your officer can be crippling, so better have a 2iC!" Etc.
Now?
"Oath of Moment = reroll to hit. Because Space Marines are really cool, but only against one enemy unit at a time, and only the units that don't already reroll to hit - they are already maximum coolness and can't get any cooler"
"This Detachment turns all of your weapons to assault, because of there's one thing that affects how heavy and hard a weapon is to use on the move, it's the administrative organization you've got your men split into"
"Tank commanders can't give orders to Baneblades because if the Lord High Marshal General Chief Commander Hero Man is absent, Baneblade herds are famous for being uncontrollably wild"
"Exterminator Autocannons give every other unit in the army improved penetration against the target because they just shoot SO MUCH. And then the Punisher that shoots more than twice as much does mortal wounds to infantry, because SHUT UP LOOK AT THE COOL ABILITIES GUYS! EVERY UNIT HAS ONE!"
Exalted for the laughs You do bring some good points though..
Reading these past few pages makes me think that one possible explanation for feeling that the game is "losing its soul" might stem from the many small changes that have increasingly lead the game from a "creative sandbox" into a more fixed, standardized "e-sports" type of game.. like you say, there is less and less room for customization, less whacky, swingy oddball things that might happen. Add up enough of such lessening of (viable) options, and you are suddenly lessening peoples investment into their game.. it becomes just another "shooter" you have fun with for a while before moving on to the next one, unless you become obsessed with it and want to become the best esports player ever torneying it out with other like minded obsessed esporters
Not saying this is how it is, just getting this kind of thoughts skimming theough some of the recent replies
There's very little to suggest the game has been designed around an e-sports or competitive model. If anything 10th has been designed around casual players complaining that everything was too complicated and that there was too much flavour.
Of course those same people are now complaining that their marine chapters don't feel special and that everything feels bland when this is exactly what they asked for.
Bosskelot wrote: There's very little to suggest the game has been designed around an e-sports or competitive model. If anything 10th has been designed around casual players complaining that everything was too complicated and that there was too much flavour.
Of course those same people are now complaining that their marine chapters don't feel special and that everything feels bland when this is exactly what they asked for.
I don't believe for a minute its the casual complaining things are too complicated, because all those complications and "system mastery" gotchas still exist, only now they're hidden under the surface so your average 40k player probably isn't going to even consider them, but your competitive player will. It definitely feels like they listened to the "a more streamlined competitive game" crowd, and in the process stripped all the flavor out of the game.
Unit1126PLL wrote: It is not clear what Oath of Moment represents in the lore. At best you can say "Marines try harder when they're under an oath". I guess they don't try very hard unless they swear to though, like a morally convicted slacker.
This is why I cannot stand Oath of Moment being the core rule for Marines this edition. I don't even care if it's powerful or not, it just doesn't make conceptual sense as an abstraction or within the fluff.
To start with, Oaths of Moment are not a 40k thing. They're a 30k thing. They were invented in the Horus Heresy series of books, and have been transferred over into 40k. Now there's nothing wrong with incorporating new fluff elements into 40k from 30k, but making them the defining rule of Marines, especially over:
1. And They Shall Know No Fear (which goes right back to 2nd Ed's 'Shaken' for Marines that failed a Break Test). 2. Combat Squads (a major part of their Doctrine-based combat, now only present in Tactical Squads). 3. Doctrine-based combat (of the three, the most recent to have mechanical rule effects, but far more intrinsic to Marines and how they have been portrayed for 30 years than Oaths of Moment).
... simply doesn't work. I'd much rather these three things continue to define Marines.
Then there's what they're representing: Everyone suddenly taking an oath that makes them try harder? What? How does that make any sense at all?
I have a similar problem with Dark Pacts. Chaos Marines make pacts with the Chaos Gods and daemonic entities. That's fine. But on such a micro-scale, each time they go to fire their guns or swing their swords? So much so that it can kill off members of the unit? That doesn't make conceptual sense. If they were doing that all the time they'd be taking more casualties from their own pacts than from the neemy.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I mean my definition of why 40k doesn't feel like 40k is that it doesn't actually feel "real". (In the sense of playing minis that actually exist in universe, not real to our universe).
Playing an army in 4e "felt" like playing that army in the setting. There was a clear tether between rules and abstractions:
"assault cannons are rending because the absurd rate of fire tears into armor material in a unique way"
"Ld represents command and control - build a vox network to extend your C2 from your officer - but then losing your officer can be crippling, so better have a 2iC!" Etc.
Now?
"Oath of Moment = reroll to hit. Because Space Marines are really cool, but only against one enemy unit at a time, and only the units that don't already reroll to hit - they are already maximum coolness and can't get any cooler"
"This Detachment turns all of your weapons to assault, because of there's one thing that affects how heavy and hard a weapon is to use on the move, it's the administrative organization you've got your men split into"
"Tank commanders can't give orders to Baneblades because if the Lord High Marshal General Chief Commander Hero Man is absent, Baneblade herds are famous for being uncontrollably wild"
"Exterminator Autocannons give every other unit in the army improved penetration against the target because they just shoot SO MUCH. And then the Punisher that shoots more than twice as much does mortal wounds to infantry, because SHUT UP LOOK AT THE COOL ABILITIES GUYS! EVERY UNIT HAS ONE!"
didn't play 4th(had quit by then) but I will agree the feeling of the armies has left the building.
Nonsensical restrictions or classifications, arbitrary USRs, strats(less but still sucky), & BLAND MISSION INTERACTIONS.
After seeing my Salamanders continuing to just be green Ultras, Emperors Children just be purple/pink BL, Metallica + knights were not as bad but...close.
At this point I dont really even WANT to try my Speedwaaaaagh so unless a new faction comes out that I like the minis/fluff for, I'm basically done w 10th.
Luckily, 30k has suited me just fine, my Salamanders & EC feel like they should(fluff-wise), Metallica feel totally heavy & thrash.
Just want some ork & Eldar rules for the crusade and I'd be happy
How about ATSKNF? Space Marines get it but only if you like the Emperor because otherwise, you aren't a Real Space Marine, even though you literally live in actual Hell and have to forever deal with the denizens of actual Hell. Is your Leadership any better because you literally live in Hell and have pretty much passed the point of even feeling fear anymore? No that would be silly. All Not Real Space Marines have to be massive cowards because they don't like the Emperor.
Do you get my point?
Haha I think that's a great example in UNITs favor. In pre 8th, ATSKNF represented the high level of discipline loyalists had to their unit, which was more of a selfless dedication to their cause, and coming to their brothers aid in crisis. Unit cohesion was strong in the face of catastrophe.
Chaos Marines however (in the cases I recall) had higher base Ld, exactly because they had been to hell and back. But they didn't have ATSKNF because when push came to shove, CSM are more inclined towards selfish self preservation than looking out for their brothers. You could have units with Ld 10, or Fearless berzerkers, but not the same unit cohesion that stemmed from a willingness for self sacrifice to a greater cause.
I haven't eyed the CSM units closely since 8th when I last played them, but I wonder if any of that pre-7th design is there beyond "Loyalists Morale Stronk, HUR".
The issue here, though, is that there is no reason (unless you count optimism so blind you'd need a guide dog) to expect the codices will improve this.
Tell me, has the SM codex added units or removed them?
Indeed, is there anything to suggest that lost options will be put back in the respective books?
Can you even name an edition since 5th in which a Dark Eldar codex has added options, rather than removing them?
Do you think GW will magically reverse their NMNR policy? What about their 'unit loadouts must match the box' rule?
I can't say about editions pre 8th, but both in 8th, 9th and 10th the dark eldar line had the entire CWE codex added by virtue of Inari existing. Isn't right now the main way to play DE, is to add some cheap chaff wyches and then take the DE tank, and supplement them with the fate dice etc that Inari get by using the CWE detachment?
If you believe this logic then why do you spend so much time complaining about GKs when you could just ally in (Read: replace 90% of your army with) SMs and play them instead?
I'm not sure DE can be saved, because I don't think there's anyone at GW that *gets* DE. But its not impossible DE are earmarked some big release in 2025, which will give them some new units for the first time in over a decade (and, in most cases, 25 years). Hope, as they say, springs eternal.
I think the changes to say DG and Tau have taken them from a similar position to a much better one.
I admire your optimism but if DE get a major release before 2030 I'll eat my laptop.
How about ATSKNF? Space Marines get it but only if you like the Emperor because otherwise, you aren't a Real Space Marine, even though you literally live in actual Hell and have to forever deal with the denizens of actual Hell. Is your Leadership any better because you literally live in Hell and have pretty much passed the point of even feeling fear anymore? No that would be silly. All Not Real Space Marines have to be massive cowards because they don't like the Emperor.
Do you get my point?
Haha I think that's a great example in UNITs favor. In pre 8th, ATSKNF represented the high level of discipline loyalists had to their unit, which was more of a selfless dedication to their cause, and coming to their brothers aid in crisis. Unit cohesion was strong in the face of catastrophe.
Chaos Marines however (in the cases I recall) had higher base Ld, exactly because they had been to hell and back. But they didn't have ATSKNF because when push came to shove, CSM are more inclined towards selfish self preservation than looking out for their brothers. You could have units with Ld 10, or Fearless berzerkers, but not the same unit cohesion that stemmed from a willingness for self sacrifice to a greater cause.
I haven't eyed the CSM units closely since 8th when I last played them, but I wonder if any of that pre-7th design is there beyond "Loyalists Morale Stronk, HUR".
Yeah, I was going to bring this up - the bitter irony of Gert's post is he points out a rule that actually takes advantage of deep core rules to make the story better.
As you say, CSMs always had a higher leadership (individually) - so if discipline was maintained, they were 'arder. What ATSKNF did was change how the Marines *failed* morale - if you could get them to break, CSM really were broken and shattered as a unit, being able to be seen off more easily. Loyalist SM were easier to break in the first place (they don't live in hell) but they didn't shatter quite so catastrophically when they did break.
It's a wonderful abstraction of a group of hard-bitten, almost criminal mercs who have "seen some gak" but are ultimately in it for themselves vice a group of brainwashed soldiers training together since they were young adults and religiously convicted not to abandon one another.
I mean the difference there was always CSM were selfish, Marines are indoctrinated to stay because fleeing is cowardice to the Emperor or whatnot, CSM would be like "feth this I'm saving my own skin"
They moved the WS/BS to the weapon instead of the operator, which they could have and did artificially accomplish in 9th (powerfist hitting on a 4+ is so different to a ws 3+ subtract 1 powerfist!). They moved a load of rules from slightly renamed copy/pastes to USR aaaand that's about it really? Oh they simplified cover back down.
Well, they also eliminated an entire phase of the game (psychic) and rebuilt another entire phase of the game (morale); the missions for the base game are now generated by a card deck, they eliminated subfaction traits for every faction in the game to the point where now any space Marine is equally a Space Wolf, and a Blood Angel, and a Dark Angel and Ultramarine depending on which detachment the player chooses; they eliminated an entire game mode and created another; they removed a game size, they made vehicles relevant again, reduced by more than 80% the number of strats available to a player during any given game and reworked CP to make strats even less important, and they went through weapon profiles with the biggest consolidation hammer we've seen in a good long time, and then made what was left over FREE....
There have been only 3 edition changes greater than those from 9th-10th: 1st to 2nd, 2nd to 3rd, and 7th-8th.
Gert wrote: Kinda just sounds like you're really bitter and are actively looking for bad or goofy reasons to hate those rules in most cases.
You can come up with a positive justification for the things you like but can't imagine anything that you don't like possibly having any sort of positive or acceptable aspect.
You have some valid points but then drown them out with others that just make you look like a ranting weirdo. I totally agree that Superheavies not getting Tank Orders is weird but then you ruin it with the hyperbole and all-caps rage.
No the rules themselves are goofy. Reroll cancer especially got out of control because the modern wargame essentially coddles the player for not making mistakes, along with dice bloat to ensure mathematically something gets through. Rather than a tactical, grounded experience where one model gets one attack unless something very rarely manages to increase that number, you get so many dice to ensure your cool, special cool guys never completely flub an attack or a shooting action so you don't feel bad. This was also the issue with stratagems and still exists with how many of the new special rules work, rather than a punishment for bad play you get a plethora of get out of jail free cards for screwing up, wherein you just magically improve a unit's firepower or manage to make them just not die (somehow). It's ridiculous and has no place in a wargame, although the core issue is just that 40kisn't a wargame anymore, and hasn't been for a while at this point.
Gert wrote: Kinda just sounds like you're really bitter and are actively looking for bad or goofy reasons to hate those rules in most cases.
You can come up with a positive justification for the things you like but can't imagine anything that you don't like possibly having any sort of positive or acceptable aspect.
You have some valid points but then drown them out with others that just make you look like a ranting weirdo. I totally agree that Superheavies not getting Tank Orders is weird but then you ruin it with the hyperbole and all-caps rage.
No the rules themselves are goofy. Reroll cancer especially got out of control because the modern wargame essentially coddles the player for not making mistakes, along with dice bloat to ensure mathematically something gets through. Rather than a tactical, grounded experience where one model gets one attack unless something very rarely manages to increase that number, you get so many dice to ensure your cool, special cool guys never completely flub an attack or a shooting action so you don't feel bad. This was also the issue with stratagems and still exists with how many of the new special rules work, rather than a punishment for bad play you get a plethora of get out of jail free cards for screwing up, wherein you just magically improve a unit's firepower or manage to make them just not die (somehow). It's ridiculous and has no place in a wargame, although the core issue is just that 40kisn't a wargame anymore, and hasn't been for a while at this point.
Don't forget the absolute hilarity of them saying that there were less re-rolls, and then IMMEDIATELY showing army wide full re-rolls (Oath)
Gert wrote: Kinda just sounds like you're really bitter and are actively looking for bad or goofy reasons to hate those rules in most cases.
You can come up with a positive justification for the things you like but can't imagine anything that you don't like possibly having any sort of positive or acceptable aspect.
You have some valid points but then drown them out with others that just make you look like a ranting weirdo. I totally agree that Superheavies not getting Tank Orders is weird but then you ruin it with the hyperbole and all-caps rage.
No the rules themselves are goofy. Reroll cancer especially got out of control because the modern wargame essentially coddles the player for not making mistakes, along with dice bloat to ensure mathematically something gets through. Rather than a tactical, grounded experience where one model gets one attack unless something very rarely manages to increase that number, you get so many dice to ensure your cool, special cool guys never completely flub an attack or a shooting action so you don't feel bad. This was also the issue with stratagems and still exists with how many of the new special rules work, rather than a punishment for bad play you get a plethora of get out of jail free cards for screwing up, wherein you just magically improve a unit's firepower or manage to make them just not die (somehow). It's ridiculous and has no place in a wargame, although the core issue is just that 40kisn't a wargame anymore, and hasn't been for a while at this point.
Don't forget the absolute hilarity of them saying that there were less re-rolls, and then IMMEDIATELY showing army wide full re-rolls (Oath)
If there's three things I hate the most in the changes from 7e to the new system(s) it's been the mass addition of rerolls for everyone and their dog, the rampant growth of dice rolls for units getting attacks or shots out the ass, and stratagems or stratagem like mechanics which just arbitrarily buff the hell out of a unit with zero tactics involved. It's just so un-wargame and feels like a child's action adventure game. Regardless for all I care 40k could just die tomorrow, my main interest is now pivoted to historicals and WHFB 6e and perhaps WAP. GW can't make good games at all anymore as far as I see it.
It's about the style of miniature design. Minis were designed one way, and then suddenly were designed another. The Thousand Sons were simply the last of the old, the Plague Marines the first of the new.
No i get that, but you seem to be implying that the new way is bad, which i disagree with
It's about the style of miniature design. Minis were designed one way, and then suddenly were designed another. The Thousand Sons were simply the last of the old, the Plague Marines the first of the new.
No i get that, but you seem to be implying that the new way is bad, which i disagree with
The new way is bad in the sense its this monopose "Part 42 goes with arm 43 and legs 45" crap, so no variety between anything if I'm not misunderstanding? Buy two boxes of plague marines, which should not look identical (whereas Rubrics are all basically automatons), and they'll look basically identical because there's no variation in assembly.
It's about the style of miniature design. Minis were designed one way, and then suddenly were designed another. The Thousand Sons were simply the last of the old, the Plague Marines the first of the new.
No i get that, but you seem to be implying that the new way is bad, which i disagree with
The new way is bad in the sense its this monopose "Part 42 goes with arm 43 and legs 45" crap, so no variety between anything if I'm not misunderstanding? Buy two boxes of plague marines, which should not look identical (whereas Rubrics are all basically automatons), and they'll look basically identical because there's no variation in assembly.
but then they picked deathguard to complain about it, which ISNT how the kits work. there is some mix and match possible with no conversion
Wayniac wrote: I mean the difference there was always CSM were selfish, Marines are indoctrinated to stay because fleeing is cowardice to the Emperor or whatnot, CSM would be like "feth this I'm saving my own skin"
Right, and the rules reflected that, is the point!
Where's that now? What's the mechanical difference between Iron Hands and Iron Warriors?
One is self-loathing and hurts themselves whilst surrounded by a religion they know is a lie, and the other is Iron Warriors?
H.B.M.C. wrote: And then that lack of variation bleeds into the rules. It's a regression.
NMNR was harmless and GW was justified though, because they had to squish those 3rd party sculptors, or else they might have not made such massive profit!
Vankraken wrote: The rampant bloat of later 8th and 9th was directly resulting from the base game being so bare bones that it had no design space to make units feel different. Almost all of the soft factors that units had was gone so it all boiled down to the hard factors which again gets really mathhammery.
Sadly I just don't think 10th expanded the core game enough to avoid the same pitfalls.
I think that's a very good appraisal- particularly the point about soft factors. When Rapid Fire meant you had to pick between shooting or charging, Assault had value that couldn't be neatly expressed with math. When you could charge a unit, kill only part of the unit, break it, and wipe it out with Sweeping Advance, that let melee units punch well above their on-paper weight and rewarded stacking factors to make that morale test fail- again, not something you can boil down to expected damage versus durability. The old AP system had its issues, but it set hard breakpoints that encouraged a rock-paper-scissors approach to weapon-target pairing rather than AP-1 or AP-2 being all-around good against everything. Morale made armies like Guard reliant on their officers, and susceptible to being broken without killing them to a man. All things that impacted decision-making beyond raw damage optimization.
For me, the 'soul' of 40K was a light beer-and-pretzels wargame with the zany sci-fi/fantasy stuff layered on top. It was exactly the sort of game you'd get by taking a bunch of guys who had grown up playing WW2 historicals and then having them design sci-fi. Over time it slowly bloated in complexity and cognitive load until being hard reset by the reimagining in 8th- but in the interest of simplifying the core mechanics, it stripped out and pared down a lot of those mechanics that reflected its historical origins and made it feel like a wargame.
I don't hate that 40K isn't what it used to be. Things change. If I do want to play a WW2 wargame where things like morale and suppression matter I have more options than ever before. Heck, if I want a game more akin to 6th-7th Ed 40K but with some modern iteration, strong morale focus, and a historical styling, HH2.0 is right there.
I just wish that when they keep trying to reboot 40K they'd actually reboot it, not just keep slapping popular modern mechanics onto what is still fundamentally a 1980s wargame structure. Playing Grimdark Future more has made me feel that all the bloat and chrome in 40K is ultimately a lot less impactful than basic things like activation structure, core unit capabilities, and combat resolution mechanics, all things that have remained largely unchanged in 40K since its inception.
Some of this is true, some of this is revisionist history.
Armies being reliant on specific characters/gimmicks to survive morale was 100% a 'hard factor'. You either DID do the gimmick (run 4 officer characters, run boys as a brick of 30, etc) and survived moral, or didn't and got killed by it (literally or figuratively depending on edition).
Same with AP. Your guns were either AP-3 or they were AP-0. Having AP-4 meant nothing. Hell, AP-2 didn't matter unless you were shooting at a tank most of the time. It wasn't rock, paper, scissors; it was rock y/n?
The stuff about combat is correct and was one of the most baffling changes to 10th.
I can't argue your overall point, because that's very subjective.
Wayniac wrote: I mean the difference there was always CSM were selfish, Marines are indoctrinated to stay because fleeing is cowardice to the Emperor or whatnot, CSM would be like "feth this I'm saving my own skin"
Right, and the rules reflected that, is the point!
Where's that now? What's the mechanical difference between Iron Hands and Iron Warriors?
One is self-loathing and hurts themselves whilst surrounded by a religion they know is a lie, and the other is Iron Warriors?
A marine is a marine. The amount of spikes changes absolutely nothing. People pretend their special snowflake goodguy marine is better than the other guy's special snowflake bad guy marine, but they're always wrong.
Gert wrote: Kinda just sounds like you're really bitter and are actively looking for bad or goofy reasons to hate those rules in most cases.
It seems to me that he's articulating a difference between special rules used as a means of representing the fluff in cases where the core stats don't suffice, versus giving units abilities for the sake of gameplay effect that don't necessarily come from the fluff at all.
They're different approaches to game design- and highlight a difference in design philosophies as the game has evolved.
Taking the Marine Codex as an example - its good that every chapter can run each of the Formations. Its bad that the chapter the formation is designed to highlight doesn't synergize with a chapter tactic type of booster for that chapter - or even that works/interacts with multiple formations for multiple approaches that chapter exemplifies - i.e. give Imperial Fists a tactic that synergizes with Anvil Seige Force and potentially Fury of the First and Vanguard Spearheads (which have some wonky options for infiltrating Terminators/Gravis)
A marine is a marine. The amount of spikes changes absolutely nothing. People pretend their special snowflake goodguy marine is better than the other guy's special snowflake bad guy marine, but they're always wrong.
That's been true since the 80s.
Uhhhh . . . See the very recent previous posts regarding Loyalists, CSM, ATSKNF and Ld.
They moved the WS/BS to the weapon instead of the operator, which they could have and did artificially accomplish in 9th (powerfist hitting on a 4+ is so different to a ws 3+ subtract 1 powerfist!). They moved a load of rules from slightly renamed copy/pastes to USR aaaand that's about it really? Oh they simplified cover back down.
Well, they also eliminated an entire phase of the game (psychic) and rebuilt another entire phase of the game (morale); the missions for the base game are now generated by a card deck, they eliminated subfaction traits for every faction in the game to the point where now any space Marine is equally a Space Wolf, and a Blood Angel, and a Dark Angel and Ultramarine depending on which detachment the player chooses; they eliminated an entire game mode and created another; they removed a game size, they made vehicles relevant again, reduced by more than 80% the number of strats available to a player during any given game and reworked CP to make strats even less important, and they went through weapon profiles with the biggest consolidation hammer we've seen in a good long time, and then made what was left over FREE....
There have been only 3 edition changes greater than those from 9th-10th: 1st to 2nd, 2nd to 3rd, and 7th-8th
.
Psychic phase is a fair point but I tend to forget that as it's been out of the game for more editions than in at this point. Morale is still a 2d6 roll compared to a ld stat, the affect is different but it doesn't feel to use, which is important. Vehicles being made relevant is purely due to stat shuffling so no rules changes there per-se.
The rest of that it outside of the rules, the reason 10th doesn't feel that removed from 9th is that imo the biggest changes are in the codex and force structure, not part of the core rules.
I'll add that the loss of subfactions is a real sore point for some, as is the reduction of strats. Some people heavily valued those to scheme and stack for gotchas, that thought process was a lot of their enjoyment in the game. However it was too much cognitive load imo and subfactions are a fairly recent thing for a lot of armies and they are almost certainly something that needed points differences due to how massively they swung balance on some units. So I understand why they went.
For what it's worth, 6th to 7th added the psychic phase, fortifications, lords of war, normalised/broadened allies and added detachments. I'd argue that had more of an impact on the game than 9th to 10th.
GW is going towards more balance to please the "tournament players". This also means less randomness in the game and less difference between armies.
Oh, I assure you that it's not just tournament players that may have a preference towards an intellectual challenge of a strategy game where you can enjoy your good moves being consistently rewarded (and lament your bad moves being consistently punished) instead of a random fest where you just watch the game play itself.
I also assure you that wh40k is very much at the latter end of this spectrum, regardless of edition. My point of reference are for example modern euro games which have no randomness whatsoever (being neatly designed they don't need tons of random to obfuscate imbalances in the system designers can't be bothered to fix). If you compare wh40k's relationship with randomness to games such as Brass or Concordia or Food Chain Magnate it is much more similar to Snakes&Ladders than any of these titles, whether in 2nd, 5th or current edition.
With respect to amount of discussion here, one relevant note is that forums are broadly obsolete -- there are definitely some big ones out there but by and large conversations are moving to other options -- reddit, Discord, video content, etc.
I think this is a very negative development in some ways and has quite worsened the level of discussion available for at least some games, but I also think that's sort of the "online cultural moment" that we're in -- sadly, forums like these are rather outmoded now.
One thing that’s hurt the soul of 40k is the invasion of reality into the fantasy.
At the start it was a sandbox. A loose frame to tell your story. Your Dudes, your collection of minis and their escapades across the battlefield. You had structure, but choices and options.
As the years have gone by, we’ve had less and less of that. The turning point was the Chapterhouse lawsuit, but that was just the start. No model, no rules is a blight on modeling and creativity. There is no need to kitbash anymore. You still can, but it’s purely aesthetic these days.
Yes, it makes it simpler for new players. No need to source obscure bits or fiddle with a hobby knife. But it also means that a lot of iconic options that help define the lore of the game and flavors of certain factions are not available, simply because GW doesn’t include that option in the currently produced kit.
And you end up with silly restrictions based on sprues. An example from the most recent kit I bought, the new Sternguard kit. The sarge can have either a combi weapon or a special ammo bolter. He can swap that for a CC toy, but he can also take a CC weapon in addition to his rifle, but only with a basic rifle, not the combi. The is because that’s the option that has the sling bit in the box. No lore or balance reasons.
Marketing, sales, and corporate are sticking their fingers into my fantasy and messing it up. Whenever you have things in- game that can’t either be explained away with lore resons (The Codex prohibits this action) or game balance ones (If we allow this option it would overlap with rule x to create an infinite kill combo) it breaks the immersion.
Kingsley wrote: With respect to amount of discussion here, one relevant note is that forums are broadly obsolete -- there are definitely some big ones out there but by and large conversations are moving to other options -- reddit, Discord, video content, etc.
I think this is a very negative development in some ways and has quite worsened the level of discussion available for at least some games, but I also think that's sort of the "online cultural moment" that we're in -- sadly, forums like these are rather outmoded now.
I have been posting on forums longer than I've had an email address. I was a forumite before it was cool, and will continue to use em after the bandwagons have moved on. The combined voices of the masses always end up approaching meaningless noise, in that regard the quality of discussion outweighs the quantity of it every single time
You could also argue that games such as 40K are outmoded and computer and video games are king - and again, does it even matter?
This gonna always be a loss of soul when a small thing made with friends and passion reaches global corporation levels. As the old guard retire and the people in charge become more interested in profits and sustainability there's no more room for risks or niche releases and appealing to the lowest common denominator becomes more important than making an official model for something because someone came up with some cool fluff.
I use reddit and facebook groups for discussion, but I prefer dakka. The forum/message board format is better for long term storage and reference of content and information. I can and regularly do pull up stuff that was posted here 10-15 years ago for reference in discussions on certain topics.
The search functionality of platforms like facebook and reddit is very poor and content posted there is basically lost to the ether after some time, good luck finding it. The increased usage of these platforms (as well as Twitter/X and Discord) has been awful in my view, as content and information shared on these platforms is segregated/unindexed on search engines and requires separate searches to pull up.
15-20 years ago, if I cooked up a bitchin' conversion of an Ork Stompa or whatever and posted it online to my forums, that content would basically live there forever so long as those servers/forums continued to be maintained, and searching for "Ork Stompa Conversion" on google could reasonably be expected to result in a hit for photos of that conversion, and potentially even the post where I explain how I did it.
Today, if I posted that conversion to Facebook/Discord/Twitter/Reddit, the only way anyone would ever be able to reference back to it in 15-20 years time is if they searched that specific platform for that information with the exact right search terms (facebook in particular seems finnicky about what/how it indexes stuff, I could use exact words from a post and not find what I'm looking for if I don't utilize the exact keywords that facebook seems to actually index by). Whats worse is that as far as Facebook and Discord are concerned, is you would need to search in a specific group or channel to find it. If you're a member of Ork Converters Anonymous channel, but I only posted the photos into Big Meks Konvershun Korner channel, you're not going to ever find that content.
Reddit and Twitter are a bit more forgiving as they do get indexed to search engines, but only if the posts reach a certain threshold of page views (which seems to be a bit higher than the threshold used for typical forums, or forum posts are otherwise more likely to hit that threshold than twitter/reddit are as it generally seems the indexing of dakka and other forums is more complete than reddit/twitter). Twitter posts are generally more difficult to search in my experience due to the way people share content to the platform - someone sharing photos of their Ork stompa conversion is less likely to post something like "Check out my cool ork stompa converted from a Khorne Lord of Skulls" and more likely to just post "#Orks #Stompa #Conversion #Warhammer40k" which are nonspecific generic terms that will produce thousands if not millions of hits that you need to parse through in order to find the one specific thing you are looking for. The use of natural language and the discussion that evolves in forum threads makes it much easier to search using even ballpark similar language or referencing snippets that were added in comments rather than the original post, etc., whereas Twitter and hashtag-centric platforms rely on exact ter inology.of the originating post and comments/replies don't usually improve searchability, etc.
Reddit on the other hand, its been my experience that if its not indexed by google you will never find it as reddits own internal search features don't seem to work very well. I have at times searched for reddit posts using reddits search features and bene unable to generate any search results at all, and then take the same search string to google and find exactly what I am looking for at the top of my results.
etc etc
Point is, forums are better for the internet and information retention than the other platforms that people have migrated to.
My favourite thing about forums is the fact that they are self contained small ponds, unlike their modern alternatives. I use a different nickname for all my forums I visit, making much more difficult for any potential stalkers to "deep profile" me. I've always thought privacy is a fundamental human right and these endelss datahives such as Reddit, Meta & Youtube dont seem to be too concerned about gakking on my privacy for profit
Ah, see I use the same screenname everywhere, though I've tried to segregate it from my real world identity as best as possible (inevitably over the years I fethed up somewhere along the way and I'm sure they are bridged together somewhere). I know others do the same as I've interacted with fellow dakkites on reddit and discord in the past (I do use discord for "other" games where there is not active discussion on my preferred channels).
Interestingly though, on multiple occasions I've recognized fellow dakkites on facebook, which is a more surprising thing as they are usually going by real names. I think for the most part its been because someone posts a thread on dakka and then posts a very similar/identical post on facebook (I thinkc thats how I ID'd HBMC once),then there was that time I spotted JohnHwangDD on FB because of his username (that or theres someone else out there with the same name who is also a 40k fan from California and its just a hell of a coincidence), pretty sure I spotted Kid_Kyoto on there too as the number of American 40k fans currently living in Egypt who have previously resided in China, etc. can't be too large of a number.
The_Real_Chris wrote: Oh forums are far superior for discussion - social media seems to be more about conversation and reaction.
So I have always been happy to see threads resurface if that discussion continues.
Agreed. AMG (the current developers of the X-Wing miniatures game) recently set up a Discord. The old forums disappeared a couple of years ago. The Discord is unusable, IMO. A single "General Discussion" channel with everyone posting about random stuff and no real organisation or categorisation makes it completely pointless except doe having areal-time conversation with someone. Even a more focussed, local Discord has similar problems. My local club's Discord has fairly low traffic, but it's still a pain to find stuff to respond to.
The decline of forums is frustrating to me because I think they provide a genuinely useful user experience that none of the alternatives can match. Seems like I'm in the minority, judging by the way things are going.
The_Real_Chris wrote: Oh forums are far superior for discussion - social media seems to be more about conversation and reaction.
So I have always been happy to see threads resurface if that discussion continues.
Agreed. AMG (the current developers of the X-Wing miniatures game) recently set up a Discord. The old forums disappeared a couple of years ago. The Discord is unusable, IMO. A single "General Discussion" channel with everyone posting about random stuff and no real organisation or categorisation makes it completely pointless except doe having areal-time conversation with someone. Even a more focussed, local Discord has similar problems. My local club's Discord has fairly low traffic, but it's still a pain to find stuff to respond to.
The decline of forums is frustrating to me because I think they provide a genuinely useful user experience that none of the alternatives can match. Seems like I'm in the minority, judging by the way things are going.
thats a problem with how the discord servers are setup, not with discord as a whole. You can trivially separate conversation in multiple different groups, and even start actual threads for when the conversation goes on a tangeant
chaos0xomega wrote: Ah, see I use the same screenname everywhere, though I've tried to segregate it from my real world identity as best as possible (inevitably over the years I fethed up somewhere along the way and I'm sure they are bridged together somewhere). I know others do the same as I've interacted with fellow dakkites on reddit and discord in the past (I do use discord for "other" games where there is not active discussion on my preferred channels).
Interestingly though, on multiple occasions I've recognized fellow dakkites on facebook, which is a more surprising thing as they are usually going by real names. I think for the most part its been because someone posts a thread on dakka and then posts a very similar/identical post on facebook (I thinkc thats how I ID'd HBMC once),then there was that time I spotted JohnHwangDD on FB because of his username (that or theres someone else out there with the same name who is also a 40k fan from California and its just a hell of a coincidence), pretty sure I spotted Kid_Kyoto on there too as the number of American 40k fans currently living in Egypt who have previously resided in China, etc. can't be too large of a number.
Ha, similar story here. I was looking up a Judge Dredd comic on Amazon the other day and ended up reading Kid Kyoto's reviews of some tube socks.
chaos0xomega wrote: Ah, see I use the same screenname everywhere, though I've tried to segregate it from my real world identity as best as possible (inevitably over the years I fethed up somewhere along the way and I'm sure they are bridged together somewhere). I know others do the same as I've interacted with fellow dakkites on reddit and discord in the past (I do use discord for "other" games where there is not active discussion on my preferred channels).
Interestingly though, on multiple occasions I've recognized fellow dakkites on facebook, which is a more surprising thing as they are usually going by real names. I think for the most part its been because someone posts a thread on dakka and then posts a very similar/identical post on facebook (I thinkc thats how I ID'd HBMC once),then there was that time I spotted JohnHwangDD on FB because of his username (that or theres someone else out there with the same name who is also a 40k fan from California and its just a hell of a coincidence), pretty sure I spotted Kid_Kyoto on there too as the number of American 40k fans currently living in Egypt who have previously resided in China, etc. can't be too large of a number.
Ha, similar story here. I was looking up a Judge Dredd comic on Amazon the other day and ended up reading Kid Kyoto's reviews of some tube socks.
LMFAO. Something similar happened to me. Forget if it was Kid Kyoto or someone else, but it was someone from dakka who I stumbled upon somewhere else online in a completely unrelated context (dont remember what exactly). It was bizarre, small world as they say lol.
The_Real_Chris wrote: Oh forums are far superior for discussion - social media seems to be more about conversation and reaction.
So I have always been happy to see threads resurface if that discussion continues.
At the risk of contributing to topic drift, I entirely agree. I have no presence on Social Media. Discord only works for small groups. I have a couple Discords for actual gaming clubs, and channels focused on a specific game, manufacturer or podcast. Once a Discord gets too big it becomes useless. As an example, I only use the OPR Discord for asking rules questions and occasionally skimming it for inspiration. There is zero ability to have an extended topical conversation there and while they do have a traditional forum, it is much less used.
When it comes to extended discussions and posting anything of lasting value I generally narrow it down to my blog, Dakka and Lead Adventure. Maybe I won't get as much immediate feedback as at a social media but at least my material is preserved, easily searchable, and likely to be available for an extended amount of time.
As for ID, I use my same handle at most forums and it's not hard to figure out who I am IRL via my blogs. I'm not going to give my personal life or information about my family away on social media, but real anonymity is unattainable.
For me, the 'soul' of 40K was a light beer-and-pretzels wargame with the zany sci-fi/fantasy stuff layered on top. It was exactly the sort of game you'd get by taking a bunch of guys who had grown up playing WW2 historicals and then having them design sci-fi. Over time it slowly bloated in complexity and cognitive load until being hard reset by the reimagining in 8th- but in the interest of simplifying the core mechanics, it stripped out and pared down a lot of those mechanics that reflected its historical origins and made it feel like a wargame.
That's an interesting desire. You have stated clearly what I wish the soul of 40k was and what eventually drove me into the warm arms of One Page Rules' "Grimdark Future". However, when it comes to 40k, I don't think "...a light beer and pretzels" experience was originally (or perhaps ever) the case. Maybe it leaned that way a bit that at the beginning of 3rd and 8th (and briefly 10th) editions with their simpler rules and basic army lists, but it wasn't long before those gave way to bloat just as 10th seems to be. If "Soul" is connected in any way to the early forms of a thing, then it bears remembering that neither Rogue Trader nor 2nd Edition were streamlined games and both further complicated themselves rather quickly with layers of rules.
For me, the 'soul' of 40K was a light beer-and-pretzels wargame with the zany sci-fi/fantasy stuff layered on top. It was exactly the sort of game you'd get by taking a bunch of guys who had grown up playing WW2 historicals and then having them design sci-fi. Over time it slowly bloated in complexity and cognitive load until being hard reset by the reimagining in 8th- but in the interest of simplifying the core mechanics, it stripped out and pared down a lot of those mechanics that reflected its historical origins and made it feel like a wargame.
That's an interesting desire. You have stated clearly what I wish the soul of 40k was and what eventually drove me into the warm arms of One Page Rules' "Grimdark Future". However, when it comes to 40k, I don't think "...a light beer and pretzels" experience was originally (or perhaps ever) the case. Maybe it leaned that way a bit that at the beginning of 3rd and 8th (and briefly 10th) editions with their simpler rules and basic army lists, but it wasn't long before those gave way to bloat just as 10th seems to be. If "Soul" is connected in any way to the early forms of a thing, then it bears remembering that neither Rogue Trader nor 2nd Edition were streamlined games and both further complicated themselves rather quickly with layers of rules.
I will freely agree that RT and 2nd were not exactly streamlined games and more representative of where 40K originated. But I came to 40K at the start of 3rd Ed, having cut my teeth on my dad's old copy of Advanced Squad Leader. For me, 40K's defining era was 3rd-5th, as a fairly light wargame still anchored in 1980s design principles but spearheaded by developers who designed for effect over tedious simulation. A double-sided quick reference sheet encapsulated all the core rules, and I could viably play the game mostly just using the one-page unit and wargear reference page at the back of my codex.
This is, of course, a purely subjective thing. Someone who came to 40K in 7th Ed and appreciated the sheer wealth of options and mechanics will have a different idea of what the 'soul' of 40K is, as will someone who started in 8th.
Like I said, I don't actually mind the more streamlined, less wargame and more war-themed-game approach. I just wish GW would holistically design around that ethos and make the core rules fun and engaging in their own right, not so bare-bones and dull that the game outright needs special rules to have any depth while still requiring a gakload of rolling to resolve anything. Grimdark Future is (deliberately) very light on chrome, but I find that its activation structure and limitations on what units can do in any given turn make for impactful decision-making, while being quicker to actually play.
I agree with catbarf wholeheartedly. There are aspects of 8th/9th/10th i like. There are aspects of 4th and 5th I like... theres not much of 6th and 7th I like lol. Implementation is of rules in the latest editions though leaves something to be desired IMO.
I will freely agree that RT and 2nd were not exactly streamlined games and more representative of where 40K originated. But I came to 40K at the start of 3rd Ed, having cut my teeth on my dad's old copy of Advanced Squad Leader. For me, 40K's defining era was 3rd-5th, as a fairly light wargame still anchored in 1980s design principles but spearheaded by developers who designed for effect over tedious simulation. A double-sided quick reference sheet encapsulated all the core rules, and I could viably play the game mostly just using the one-page unit and wargear reference page at the back of my codex.
That is really good context to consider. 3rd edition was pretty streamlined. However, even RT and 2nd might seem like lighter fare if one's background at the time in was heavy games like ASL, Tractics, Starfleet Battles, etc....
With the caveat that I find One Page Rules get stale quickly - yes, there's a legitimate tactical puzzle there, but it's always the same puzzle. With all units ultimately coming out of the same point buy table and all behaving in the same way, the breadth of possible interactions is small.
With the caveat that I find One Page Rules get stale quickly - yes, there's a legitimate tactical puzzle there, but it's always the same puzzle. With all units ultimately coming out of the same point buy table and all behaving in the same way, the breadth of possible interactions is small.
Grimdark Future is a great game and I don't find it gets stale if you also use the points calculator to make new units... but that's in regards to the '2.x' edition. I cannot stand the new edition whatsoever, especially with how the maximum range of any weapon, including artillery, was capped at a pitiful 36". I have no idea what's going on with their design philosophy but they seem to chase casual play at the expense of being a proper wargame harder than even GW does now.
^I agree that OPR doesn't quite have the crunch I'm looking for. But modern 40k doesn't either
"Peak 40k" being 3rd - 5th is understandable, but I'd have to include 2nd, even though it's on a totally different set of rules. Core factions were solidified, tournaments were played, and the WD battle reports were just perfection.
It's not something I've thought of recently, but I do distinctly remember 3rd and 4th edition being playable with the Quick Reference sheets and the compiled rules at the back of the codex. You'd occasionally have to leaf elsewhere but mostly just in edge scenarios, as most of the game and its interactions were very cut and dry.
I didn't play 5th but, by the time I'd dipped my toes into 6th later on, that was no longer the case.
With the caveat that I find One Page Rules get stale quickly - yes, there's a legitimate tactical puzzle there, but it's always the same puzzle. With all units ultimately coming out of the same point buy table and all behaving in the same way, the breadth of possible interactions is small.
I do think that there is always going to be some difference in opinion between those who are fine with simplicity in their army lists and those who want RPG style flavor.
I will say though that army lists aren't necessarily the best place to find variations on the tactical puzzle. Far better, I think to find that in the playing out of interesting scenarios. That may require reading outside the rulebook and having negotiations with your opponent but that's ok. By comparison, I think GW Codices reward list building far more than they encourage tactical play.
It's not something I've thought of recently, but I do distinctly remember 3rd and 4th edition being playable with the Quick Reference sheets and the compiled rules at the back of the codex. You'd occasionally have to leaf elsewhere but mostly just in edge scenarios, as most of the game and its interactions were very cut and dry.
I didn't play 5th but, by the time I'd dipped my toes into 6th later on, that was no longer the case.
For 3rd at least, there's a few hiccups regarding grenades, mainly because they're not placed in one spot but spread across the book. Frag is in assault, Krak is in vehicle, but that's the biggest hiccup.
I do think that there is always going to be some difference in opinion between those who are fine with simplicity in their army lists and those who want RPG style flavor.
Insectum7 wrote: ^I agree that OPR doesn't quite have the crunch I'm looking for. But modern 40k doesn't either
"Peak 40k" being 3rd - 5th is understandable, but I'd have to include 2nd, even though it's on a totally different set of rules. Core factions were solidified, tournaments were played, and the WD battle reports were just perfection.
I find 2nd ed mechanically fascinating. I've only read the rules and have never played it, its hard for me to say it was a *good* game per se, but the designers came up with some pretty fun mechanics.
I do think that there is always going to be some difference in opinion between those who are fine with simplicity in their army lists and those who want RPG style flavor.
This guy gets it.
I'm not so sure. That might be a tremendous overgeneralization.
There is a vast gulf between 2nd ed or RT era design, and just how simplified OPR is. Arguably 3rd-era 40k is right in the middle between the two, where army lists are still simple, but there's still a ton of flavor to go around, because interesting tactival interactions still are made possible with increased resolution in the core rules. I'd even say that era offered detail if you wanted it, but you could also get by without it.
Insectum7 wrote: ^I agree that OPR doesn't quite have the crunch I'm looking for. But modern 40k doesn't either
"Peak 40k" being 3rd - 5th is understandable, but I'd have to include 2nd, even though it's on a totally different set of rules. Core factions were solidified, tournaments were played, and the WD battle reports were just perfection.
I find 2nd ed mechanically fascinating. I've only read the rules and have never played it, its hard for me to say it was a *good* game per se, but the designers came up with some pretty fun mechanics.
It's greatest strength was flavor. It was otherwise both great and incredibly clunky. Very gritty and tactile, and sorta hard to explain. The detail meant that you often couldn't help but tell a great story. I do recommend trying it if you can.
I'll echo the sentiments earlier that this boils down to the fundamental dichotomy between more 'flavor' -- AKA more material for imagination, storytelling, and role playing -- vs more gameplay -- the pure enjoyment of solving an interesting but totally abstract puzzle.
GW wants Heresy to be the more RP-oriented space marine game and 40k to be the competitive gameplay-oriented space marine game. Unfortunately that means if you like RP but don't like space marines, you're outta luck. For that group 10e would certainly feel like it's losing its soul. It all just depends on your personal preferences.
I feel it's more that GW vacillates between the two extremes, seemingly at random, and with no real indication that they understand what they're doing or why they're doing it.
10th saw a reduction in bloat, but, typically, went too far and saw them remove too many things that didn't need such massive reductions (removal of combi-weapons and certain specialised melee weapons, the complete lack of variety and choice with psychic powers).
We're veering very close to the "simulation vs abstraction" argument, and that's an ugly place.
I do think that there is always going to be some difference in opinion between those who are fine with simplicity in their army lists and those who want RPG style flavor.
This guy gets it.
I'm not so sure. That might be a tremendous overgeneralization.
There is a vast gulf between 2nd ed or RT era design, and just how simplified OPR is. Arguably 3rd-era 40k is right in the middle between the two, where army lists are still simple, but there's still a ton of flavor to go around, because interesting tactival interactions still are made possible with increased resolution in the core rules. I'd even say that era offered detail if you wanted it, but you could also get by without it.
I wasn't agreeing with any edition/system comparison. I'm agreeing with Eilif's point that some people are always going to prefer games that favour tactical/positional/wargame playstyles where balance is considered absolutely critical and other people who prefer large rambling sandboxes full of roleplay style opportunities, and are prepared to accept that some of these opportunities have the potential to impact balance.
I liked 2nd ed., but any role-playing elements, I pretty much had to invent. Third had a hint of narrative- especially the Hunter dexes, which included enemies and missions, and also allowed for allies. There wasn't a lot of thought put into progression, or extended campaign systems and the game didn't scale. Fourth and Fifth are where you start to see serious thought put into RPG elements- progression, escalation, campaign structures, etc. This is also the genesis of Kill Team and Apocalypse.
I classify 9th (and specifically Crusade) as the peak system for folks who lean toward RPG's. Wargames actually tend to bore me- they can be fun, and I can appreciate them... but they don't compel me to play them as campaigns- they are occasional distractions from expansive RPG and RPG-hybrid campaigns.
But that's merely my opinion... Which is the point. Which edition is your favourite is going to depend at least some degree upon your game-type preferences. That is the point I was referring to when I said Eilif gets it.
I don't equate progression systems with RPG elements, and instead think of a game being easier to roleplay in if it is more immersive.
9th had a great progression system (Crusade) but was not immersive, and 10th is even worse.
I care a lot less that my Company Commander has the Medal of Personal Inconvenience and the Sword of Archmurdering +1 if my tanks can't blow smoke because my Guardsmen spent all the CP passing their morale checks.
I do think that there is always going to be some difference in opinion between those who are fine with simplicity in their army lists and those who want RPG style flavor.
This guy gets it.
I'm not so sure. That might be a tremendous overgeneralization.
There is a vast gulf between 2nd ed or RT era design, and just how simplified OPR is. Arguably 3rd-era 40k is right in the middle between the two, where army lists are still simple, but there's still a ton of flavor to go around, because interesting tactival interactions still are made possible with increased resolution in the core rules. I'd even say that era offered detail if you wanted it, but you could also get by without it.
I wasn't agreeing with any edition/system comparison. I'm agreeing with Eilif's point that some people are always going to prefer games that favour tactical/positional/wargame playstyles where balance is considered absolutely critical and other people who prefer large rambling sandboxes full of roleplay style opportunities, and are prepared to accept that some of these opportunities have the potential to impact balance.
I liked 2nd ed., but any role-playing elements, I pretty much had to invent. Third had a hint of narrative- especially the Hunter dexes, which included enemies and missions, and also allowed for allies. There wasn't a lot of thought put into progression, or extended campaign systems and the game didn't scale. Fourth and Fifth are where you start to see serious thought put into RPG elements- progression, escalation, campaign structures, etc. This is also the genesis of Kill Team and Apocalypse.
I classify 9th (and specifically Crusade) as the peak system for folks who lean toward RPG's. Wargames actually tend to bore me- they can be fun, and I can appreciate them... but they don't compel me to play them as campaigns- they are occasional distractions from expansive RPG and RPG-hybrid campaigns.
But that's merely my opinion... Which is the point. Which edition is your favourite is going to depend at least some degree upon your game-type preferences. That is the point I was referring to when I said Eilif gets it.
I mean, obviously personal preferences are going to colour which edition/s an individual favors. But I don't think the proposed extremes "simplicity" vs. "flavor" are necessarily so opposed to each other.
Eilif's statement also appears to be more about list construction too, in particular. This is why I mention the 3rd ed era (3-5). The basic rules incorporated a number of abstractions for the sake of gameplay, representing a huge cleanup from 2nd ed, but it also grew to be one of the most pro-listbuilding-creativity eras (which is what I would consider to be more RPGish). I'd also say that it seems to me that whenever a poll comes up about it, the 3-5 era is pretty popular too, and I'd wager that a part of that is its clean foundation, with the allowance for expressive (RPGish) detail in both the codexes and the core rules. I believe you can reasonably satisfy both crowds and get a great game out of it.
I'd also second the above post regarding how RPG =/= progression mechanics. I'd say character/unit design and on-table narrative detail would be more RPGish.
Also, hey if campaign books and a progression system are what you need to make it an RPG that satisfies you, that's not really a core-design point anyways as long as the system has enough "give" to handle any progression. It sounds like just an add-on.
I also dont like to place "progression" as a core element for RPG-like gaming. As a kid playing my first D&D games in the early nineties, I always thought the whole XP grind and leveling up were goofy mechanics. To me, the essence of RPGing comes from the continuity of the story, and immersing into the character / world building, not from some abstraction of becoming a superhero. In a way, this kind of "XP grinding for levels" thing reminds me of some perverted version of the American Dream, ie building up a "success story" where you build some sort of internal empire.. This sort of ideas would have been quite alien to most people living in medieval times, unless they were born to Royal families.. or is it another angle into the whole "juvenile power fantasy" thing?
One very vital aspect to RPGs in my opinion is a "creative sandbox" dimension, meaning that things are never 100% set in stone, improvisation and unexpected new things can happen any time.. And I lament the shrinking down of modern 40K's sandbox that is slowly happening on several levels simultaneously. RT could be considered to be 100% "Open Play" 40K compared to modern times, and now, "Open Play" is becoming a swear word
Yup, it's also a pet peeve of mine when people call games RPGs just because they have XPs, stats and levels. You can have a perfectly good RPG with no rules or numbers at all but you can't have it without emergent, player-driven narrative where characters' traits of, well, character (and these are determined by roleplaying not rules) dictate their decisions and choices.
So, no, Darkest Dungeon or X-Com aren't RPGs just like Duolingo isn't.
Cyel wrote: Yup, it's also a pet peeve of mine when people call games RPGs just because they have XPs, stats and levels. You can have a perfectly good RPG with no rules or numbers at all but you can't have it without emergent, player-driven narrative where characters' traits of, well, character (and these are determined by roleplaying not rules) dictate their decisions and choices.
So, no, Darkest Dungeon or X-Com aren't RPGs just like Duolingo isn't.
Sounds like you'd like 'Fate' or 'Spirit of the Century'.
Dnd is fine for what it is but its a hack and slash dungeon crawler/looter more than anything else.
Personally I dislike micromanaging the minutaue all the time and an excessive focus on 'the numbers' at the expense of 'the story'.
Agree with the comments on RPGs in general whether pen&paper or computer based. To me, the 'playing a role' is a central aspect of 'role playing games' and a huge conponent of that is about taking a strong character through an immersive story with a strong narrative component. Far more important than 'levelling up' imo. Whilst i love games like cyberpunk 2077 and witcher 3 for having fantastic story elements, I found, funnily enough, that 'life is strange' has far stronger 'role playing' elements in terms of the game's story and mechanics. And there's no levelling up in sight.
Coming back to 10th for a second, I just realized today that my local group's discord is absolutely flooded with people trying to unload their Leviathans. Especially the rules part.
I do think that there is always going to be some difference in opinion between those who are fine with simplicity in their army lists and those who want RPG style flavor.
This guy gets it.
I'm not so sure. That might be a tremendous overgeneralization.
There is a vast gulf between 2nd ed or RT era design, and just how simplified OPR is. Arguably 3rd-era 40k is right in the middle between the two, where army lists are still simple, but there's still a ton of flavor to go around, because interesting tactival interactions still are made possible with increased resolution in the core rules. I'd even say that era offered detail if you wanted it, but you could also get by without it.
Insectum7 wrote: ^I agree that OPR doesn't quite have the crunch I'm looking for. But modern 40k doesn't either
"Peak 40k" being 3rd - 5th is understandable, but I'd have to include 2nd, even though it's on a totally different set of rules. Core factions were solidified, tournaments were played, and the WD battle reports were just perfection.
I find 2nd ed mechanically fascinating. I've only read the rules and have never played it, its hard for me to say it was a *good* game per se, but the designers came up with some pretty fun mechanics.
It's greatest strength was flavor. It was otherwise both great and incredibly clunky. Very gritty and tactile, and sorta hard to explain. The detail meant that you often couldn't help but tell a great story. I do recommend trying it if you can.
I'd say that 2.x OPR is actually far more tactical than most editions of 40k outside of 2e with just how nitty gritty 2e gets, as while OPR lacks for vehicle rules it gets extremely complex when it comes to movement due to alternating activation, and most importantly the morale phase is potentially devastating compared to 40k where half the time it just doesn't matter at all. Melee is also a lot more effective than in 40k because of morale, as a broken unit is completely wiped out and routed from the field in one fell swoop. The addition of suppression is also a welcome one that does much to improve the game, although I found need to house rule just how it works otherwise nobody can do anything as they end up buried under a mountain of suppression markers.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I don't equate progression systems with RPG elements, and instead think of a game being easier to roleplay in if it is more immersive.
I know that. I think I also asked you once to name an RPG that doesn't have one. I don't think you could.
When every instance of a thing shares a common characteristic, that characteristic is a definitional part of the thing in question, regardless of what YOU believe.
You can believe that nursing their young isn't a definitional characteristic of being a mammal if you want to- maybe you really like spines, and think that being vertebrate is the only characteristic that is relevant to being a mamal. You'd be wrong, but you can believe it.
I know that. I think I also asked you once to name an RPG that doesn't have one. I don't think you could.
Traveller. One of the oldest.
Classic 1977 Traveller might not have had a progression system, but the versions published for GURPS and the D20 open GL certainly did, since progression is native to those systems. We looked into traveller during the early 80's- I think we saw an article in a gaming magazine. I designed a ship, but we never played.
The Wikki, which references all of the versions of the game, includes this quote "Characters are defined not by the need to increase native skill and ability but by achievements, discoveries, wealth, and so on."
So I guess that does mean classic traveller didn't have a progression system. I don't know how anyone enjoys playing a character that can't grow, but you found a game where it's possible. Congratulations!
Are there others? (at this point, it's genuine curiousity- I've played a lot of RPGs in my time, but evidently not all of them).
Unit1126PLL wrote: I don't equate progression systems with RPG elements, and instead think of a game being easier to roleplay in if it is more immersive.
I know that. I think I also asked you once to name an RPG that doesn't have one. I don't think you could.
When every instance of a thing shares a common characteristic, that characteristic is a definitional part of the thing in question, regardless of what YOU believe.
You can believe that nursing their young isn't a definitional characteristic of being a mammal if you want to- maybe you really like spines, and think that being vertebrate is the only characteristic that is relevant to being a mamal. You'd be wrong, but you can believe it.
Yes but the point of debate isn't whether or not an RPG *has* level-up/XP mechanics. 4th edition has a leveling/XP campaign system in the BRB just as prominently as Crusade.
It's that improving/adding a progression system doesn't make an RPG better. If you took DnD's levelling system and added it to the Great People in Civilization VI (allowing them to choose feats, etc.) you may have improved the progression system for characters in Civ6 but you haven't made Civ6 an RPG.
Immersion and the coherency of the world around the characters is *more* important. Arguably, the *most* important. Heck, you can roleplay in real life and I am not sure I ever have wondered how much XP I got for successfully completing the WWII reenactment.
So I guess that does mean classic traveller didn't have a progression system. I don't know how anyone enjoys playing a character that can't grow, but you found a game where it's possible. Congratulations!
I may have mislead folks when I used the term "RPG".
I've typically used it to refer to the idea that folks want wargame profiles to reflect the character of their units so much that the profiles have "RPG-like" levels of flavor via long statlines and special rules. I was NOT referring to mechanics for character and unit progression and campaigns.
In my opinion (many will disagree) wargaming (especially above the platoon vs platoon level) benefits from simplified rules encouraging larger games to move more quickly. The units should reflect the fluff/background/art somewhat, but not at the expense of weighing down the game. It seems GW has constantly battled between the desires of those who want a faster more cinematic game and those who want their units to reflect the fluff in increasing levels of detail. My observation is that though there has been vacillation and some editions have begun leaning somewhat toward simplicity, GW has always eventually given in to those who want more rules more strategems, and more complexity. This is good for a company that sells wargaming books, but not so good for the player. Knowing this is also a major factor in why I resisted jumping back in with Editions 8 and 10. They both seemed like a return to simplicity at first, but both moved (or are now moving) the other way.
"Peak 40k" being 3rd - 5th is understandable, but I'd have to include 2nd, even though it's on a totally different set of rules. Core factions were solidified, tournaments were played, and the WD battle reports were just perfection.
I find 2nd ed mechanically fascinating. I've only read the rules and have never played it, its hard for me to say it was a *good* game per se, but the designers came up with some pretty fun mechanics.
H.B.M.C. wrote:They worked on a small scale, which is why Necromunda was so good.
This is very much what I feel about 2nd edition. I find it way too much crunch (especially with specialized units and psykers) for battles of platoon and above. However, the same set of mechanics works fantastically in Necromunda.
This should not be surprising as 2nd edition was an outgrowth of Rogue Trader which itself began as a rather small skirmish game that gradually ballooned to Platoon level without a corresponding simplification that one would expect when taking a squad skirmish game and expanding it to the Platoon level. I don't have a source, but I recall hearing that it was largely the desire of players to have larger battles.
What I'm trying to say is that Necromunda is the size/scope of game that the RT/2ndEd mechanics were designed for and it plays well because of it. I jumped ship from Newcrowmunda after I saw the rules doing what GW usually does. However, despite it's rather dated mechanics, I'm always up for a game of classic Necromunda. It's a game that drips flavor, has a fun campaign system, works very well mechanically and doesn't bog down.
IIRCGW has said in retrospect that people who played long enough ended up with "too big armies for the game" so the scope of the rules had to be increased. I dont even know if that was a problem in and of itself, if 3rd - 5th edition period is looked back as being in the goldilocks zone for the game.. so were consolidating vehicles into having toughness values and the introduction of stratagems steps too far? Or the reduction of wargear options? Or did the inclusion of Knights and superheavies mess up everything, so that the originally skirmish scoped poor core ruleset cannot handle the massively inflated scope?
Would 40K be better off redesigned from the ground up like KT21 did? It ditched all of the established stat foundations in favour of new ones.. Would such a redesign even be a feasible task for 40K, considering it has so many factions and units now?
tauist wrote: IIRCGW has said in retrospect that people who played long enough ended up with "too big armies for the game" so the scope of the rules had to be increased. I dont even know if that was a problem in and of itself, if 3rd - 5th edition period is looked back as being in the goldilocks zone for the game.. so were consolidating vehicles into having toughness values and the introduction of stratagems steps too far? Or the reduction of wargear options?
I don't think those things helped. 3rd-5th was IMHO the sweet spot as far as size. Roughly company level: A few squads, a vehicle or two, maybe a walker, things like that. Basically the same size Bolt Action is now.
Wayniac wrote: I don't think those things helped. 3rd-5th was IMHO the sweet spot as far as size. Roughly company level: A few squads, a vehicle or two, maybe a walker, things like that. Basically the same size Bolt Action is now.
That's a platoon size, not a company.
A company has several squads and/or dozens of tanks.
A company if tanks in the real world is typically between 9 and 14 tanks, depending on the military in question. Most common is 9-10 vehicles.
A platoon is several squads, a company is several platoons (usually 200-300 personnel).
Bolt Action is built around the concept of a "reinforced platoon". IE a platoon minimum plus additional support. Most 1500 pt bolt action armies would really weigh in around 2-3 platoons worth of troops if they don't sink too many points into tanks and artillery, etc. Which would actually constitute a smallish company
Eilif wrote: I may have mislead folks when I used the term "RPG".
I've typically used it to refer to the idea that folks want wargame profiles to reflect the character of their units so much that the profiles have "RPG-like" levels of flavor via long statlines and special rules. I was NOT referring to mechanics for character and unit progression and campaigns.
Yeah that's sorta what I had read. "RPG" relating to character and options available to units, vs. "streamlined" reduction of options for the sake of balance and ease of maintenance.
And IMO40k better serves its audience when it's a bit messier in terms of options and character. GW can't really balance it when it's a "cleaner" system anyways.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wayniac wrote: 3rd-5th was IMHO the sweet spot as far as size.
I tend to agree with this, but with the observation that 3rd-4th had a better focus around infantry, especially more basic infantry. 5th began to move the balance more in favor of Vehicles, MCs, and high-statted "power units", which was not good.
Insectum7 wrote:
Yeah that's sorta what I had read. "RPG" relating to character and options available to units, vs. "streamlined" reduction of options for the sake of balance and ease of maintenance.
And IMO40k better serves its audience when it's a bit messier in terms of options and character. GW can't really balance it when it's a "cleaner" system anyways.
How 40k serves it's audience is an interesting discussion itself. GW do fans seem to clamor for options and character, but that comes at the expense of balance and gameplay.
I would argue that a cleaner system is the only way to balance gameplay and options and character tend to work against it.
Interestingly, Grimdark future has nearly as many weapon options as GW codices, it's just that there are vastly fewer stats and special rules to complicate them
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tauist wrote:IIRCGW has said in retrospect that people who played long enough ended up with "too big armies for the game" so the scope of the rules had to be increased. I dont even know if that was a problem in and of itself, if 3rd - 5th edition period is looked back as being in the goldilocks zone for the game.. so were consolidating vehicles into having toughness values and the introduction of stratagems steps too far? Or the reduction of wargear options? Or did the inclusion of Knights and super-heavies mess up everything, so that the originally skirmish scoped poor core ruleset cannot handle the massively inflated scope?
Would 40K be better off redesigned from the ground up like KT21 did? It ditched all of the established stat foundations in favour of new ones.. Would such a redesign even be a feasible task for 40K, considering it has so many factions and units now?
All those things you list contribute to a game being unwieldy. However, at least some them could have been introduced in an effective way if the rules were written in a way to accommodate a larger game. I do think such a thing can be done and certainly has by other companies but I don't know that GW fans would tolerate the less "characterful" play. .
Tyran wrote:
Wayniac wrote: I don't think those things helped. 3rd-5th was IMHO the sweet spot as far as size. Roughly company level: A few squads, a vehicle or two, maybe a walker, things like that. Basically the same size Bolt Action is now.
That's a platoon size, not a company.
A company has several squads and/or dozens of tanks.
What "size" game you play is largely dependent on what army you play. An IG player can put a company on the table inside of 2000 points easy. A Space marine player can more likely field a reinforced platoon. Assuming as per the US army, 3-4 vehicles is a platoon and 20-50 soldiers is also a platoon, I do think that GW has generally surpassed a simple "platoon" sized game. Most players are going to field a couple platoons worth in a given game.
tauist wrote: IIRCGW has said in retrospect that people who played long enough ended up with "too big armies for the game" so the scope of the rules had to be increased. I dont even know if that was a problem in and of itself, if 3rd - 5th edition period is looked back as being in the goldilocks zone for the game.. so were consolidating vehicles into having toughness values and the introduction of stratagems steps too far? Or the reduction of wargear options?
I don't think those things helped. 3rd-5th was IMHO the sweet spot as far as size. Roughly company level: A few squads, a vehicle or two, maybe a walker, things like that. Basically the same size Bolt Action is now.
Don't forget that "normal" was designed to be 1500 then as well, so there's a 500 point inflation in game size even if points were 1:1. But I agree that size felt better.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Equipment never should have been changed to strats. That much is certain.
100% this.
a unit could have a strategem to make them use grenades better, more effectively, representing command focus on the action, but should not need one simply to use the things.
like say any can use the strat as it is, 0CP, but its on a 6+, the strat makes it work as it does now.
ditto overwatch, go back to the unit reacting is the only being charged (only) but all can do it, make the strat the movement phase again reflecting command focus
Insectum7 wrote:
Yeah that's sorta what I had read. "RPG" relating to character and options available to units, vs. "streamlined" reduction of options for the sake of balance and ease of maintenance.
And IMO40k better serves its audience when it's a bit messier in terms of options and character. GW can't really balance it when it's a "cleaner" system anyways.
How 40k serves it's audience is an interesting discussion itself. GW do fans seem to clamor for options and character, but that comes at the expense of balance and gameplay.
I would argue that a cleaner system is the only way to balance gameplay and options and character tend to work against it.
Interestingly, Grimdark future has nearly as many weapon options as GW codices, it's just that there are vastly fewer stats and special rules to complicate them
I think a cleaner system is a system which makes measuring balance easier.
But I would argue that there's potential for a messier system to have it's own different form of balance, just in a less linear form. For all the messiness of 2nd edition, one of it's strengths was the wealth of available tactical options that came out of all those options. If you happened to find yourself grossly outnumbered by a huge swarm of Hormagaunts via a spam list, you also could have ways to fight it that just weren't so available in "cleaner" editions. Whole squads could jump in transports, ram through swarms of Gants and toss tons of Frag Grenades out the doors, while the vehicle rules made the Transports invulnerable to Homagaunt counterattacks. People often complained about cheesy Eldar Exarchs, and their amazing powers and equipment. . . but you could also set them on fire and watch them burn for a few rounds while attempting to put out the flames. Potential balance comes in different forms by way of having a wide variety of options to deal with different threats. There's a real merit to it, IMO.
Also, it seems like balance is currently measured primarily by faction winrate, which is an extremely shallow metric.
tauist wrote: IIRCGW has said in retrospect that people who played long enough ended up with "too big armies for the game" so the scope of the rules had to be increased. I dont even know if that was a problem in and of itself, if 3rd - 5th edition period is looked back as being in the goldilocks zone for the game.. so were consolidating vehicles into having toughness values and the introduction of stratagems steps too far? Or the reduction of wargear options?
I don't think those things helped. 3rd-5th was IMHO the sweet spot as far as size. Roughly company level: A few squads, a vehicle or two, maybe a walker, things like that. Basically the same size Bolt Action is now.
Don't forget that "normal" was designed to be 1500 then as well, so there's a 500 point inflation in game size even if points were 1:1. But I agree that size felt better.
Minor point, but I recall tournament games at 1750 in 3rd, and 1850 in 4th . . . ? I think?
I mean, don't forget that in 4th edition, Imperial Guard literally fielded platoons as a single troops choice.
They were the most similar army to a historical layout at the time. I think it is reasonable therefore to say that if 4th edition 40k was a historical game, it would have been company scale.
The reason it worked so well for both RPG AND wargame play in my opinion is that it abstracted things reasonably - i.e. the lore tether.
Consider terrain: it is rigidly indefinable by definition at a company scale. In DnD you can differentiate between different levels of cover or darkness, but in 4e, you had Night Fighting and Area or not-area (i.e. scatter) terrain. Area terrain was heavily abstracted, but it worked well because the tether was there. A ruin is not an empty shell with windows - it is a pile of rubble, collapsed floors, and upended furniture. We know you can't play on that, so it isn't going to Look Just Like That, but it will look good and the RULES will interact in an RPGish "theater of the mind" sort of way.
Consider too Power Weapons: the main mechanism of damage is the armor-ignoring power field. The physical difference in shape and use between an axe and a sword is less important than the fact that it has a power field.
Those kind of abstractions actually HELP RPGers rather than hurt them, as the narrative is very clearly tied to the rules via an obvious tether. So if a power maul beats my power axe in combat, it wasn't because I was an idiot and took the axe like a fool. It was because the other guy had more attacks/higher weapon skill/good luck/whatever.
I miss platoons. They were such a cool thing. Removing them was a mistake.
Insectum7 wrote: Also, it seems like balance is currently measured primarily by faction winrate, which is an extremely shallow metric.
It's all about them win rates, yo!
Your army getting a 50% win rate? Then it's perfectly balanced and we don't need to look at how or why it's achieving this rate, what units are being used or not used, or anything more detailed than that!
Unit1126PLL wrote: I mean, don't forget that in 4th edition, Imperial Guard literally fielded platoons as a single troops choice.
Hehe, good point.
Unit1126PLL wrote: The reason it worked so well for both RPG AND wargame play in my opinion is that it abstracted things reasonably - i.e. the lore tether.
Yeah, this was a really big deal. The abstractions were pretty efficient, effective, and reasonably tethered to the background. The only quibbles I really had that come to mind were:
1."Bolters/basic weapons in a squad can't fire at opposing infantry while the heavy weapon guy shoots at a vehicle". I think that really bugged a lot of people, and made the "introductory unit" the Tactical squad, a bit too punishing.
2. High Armor units (Marines) gaining no benefit against basic weapons when in cover. It's a rule that ultimately functioned pretty well, and I'll defend the design-thought behind it because it forced hard choices. But it was a tough pill to swallow for many, not very intuitive, and unnecessary.
3. AT weapons being limited to only 1 damage against MCs. This wasn't so much an issue in 4th because MCs hadn't gotten out of control yet, but it sure as hell became a huge issue later on. I would make some adjustments around that.
4: Auto-pinning coming out of a destroyed vehicle was too harsh. Something less binary would have been a better solution.
Agreed - and some of those things HH2.0 has fixed, and some not.
I think my solutions would be:
1) allow the squad to split fire only on a LD check per additional target, and if any one check is failed, the whole unit can't shoot because of confusion. (Should be easy for a Marine squad to hit a tank and one unit of dudes, should be much harder for them to each fire at a single separate target for 10 in total). Or I would change it to be like COC, at least for infantry, and require only an LD test to direct a unit's fire once. (Obviously I would remove Target Priority tests)
2) I think if you split this between cover and concealment you would do wonders. Light infantry SHOULD benefit from concealment more than heavy infantry, but Heavy Infantry should still see some benefit to being behind a concrete battlement. Probably abstract this with a modifier to the hit roll for concealment and a modifier to the wound roll for bulletproof cover. That way, a unit's armor still meaningfully adds to its toughness but it can benefit from bulletproof cover.
3) "Brutal" in HH does an okay job of addressing this - a unit can take multiple "wounds" from a single impact. This means that a Vanquisher cannon, for example, can do 4 wounds to a (usually) 6 wound dreadnought-equivalent in one shooting phase. Generally I can think of a few other abstractions as well.
4) Auto-pinning was harsh, but forcing a pinning test is fine. The only issue in 40k (absent from 30k) is the sheer number of fearless models/models that DGAF about Leadership. I would probably make a Strength or Initiative test against entanglement (avoiding getting stuck in the wreckage) and a pinning test to reorganize. Sounds harsh for regular humans, but I don't think it is unrealistic and can give Strength and Initiative good reasons to exist outside CC
8th edition drained the soul from 40k. 10th edition just took out a lot of redundant and unnecessary gak that honestly added very little to the game.
The only issue I have with 10th edition is the utter trash that they call "aircraft". You're better off putting them in hover and staying right at 48inches rather than, you know, FLYING AROUND THE BATTLEFIELD.
Insectum7 wrote:
Yeah that's sorta what I had read. "RPG" relating to character and options available to units, vs. "streamlined" reduction of options for the sake of balance and ease of maintenance.
And IMO40k better serves its audience when it's a bit messier in terms of options and character. GW can't really balance it when it's a "cleaner" system anyways.
How 40k serves it's audience is an interesting discussion itself. GW do fans seem to clamor for options and character, but that comes at the expense of balance and gameplay.
No, it doesn't. It would if GW could launch a 40k edition with great balance and gameplay under any circumstances, but even if the game had 20 units and 3 relics it'd still be unbalanced at launch. We've never gotten anything from removed options. The only options that shouldn't be represented is the difference between Sergeants with and without helmets and whether a power weapon is an axe, maul or sword where it adds nothing to the game and represents nothing fluffy. Melta and flamers or Scouts and Space Marines being different is really important.
Insectum7 wrote: Also, it seems like balance is currently measured primarily by faction winrate, which is an extremely shallow metric.
It's a great primary metric, what would you suggest should be the primary metric? Player enjoyment? If Eldar players are having a good time then them being the focal point of game balance is fine? A lot of good things come naturally from a 50% win rate. The game lead has also been saying clever things for the past year on game balance, if that's your main concern with 10th then worrying does not make sense. Poor launch but 6th, 8th and 9th had quite bad balance as well.
Sledgehammer wrote: 8th edition drained the soul from 40k. 10th edition just took out a lot of redundant and unnecessary gak that honestly added very little to the game.
Insectum7 wrote: Also, it seems like balance is currently measured primarily by faction winrate, which is an extremely shallow metric.
It's a great primary metric, what would you suggest should be the primary metric?
I wouldn't so quickly suggest that there be a "primary" metric. But other things I would look for is diversity of build and usage of units for each faction. We should all understand by now that just because a few units in a codex can make a singular tournament winning list, we shouldn't say a codex is "fine" even when the other 90% of units in it never get used competitively.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I miss platoons. They were such a cool thing. Removing them was a mistake.
Insectum7 wrote: Also, it seems like balance is currently measured primarily by faction winrate, which is an extremely shallow metric.
It's all about them win rates, yo!
Your army getting a 50% win rate? Then it's perfectly balanced and we don't need to look at how or why it's achieving this rate, what units are being used or not used, or anything more detailed than that!
The eldar seem to always be at both ends of this problem.
Their army somehow gets a combo of particularly effective or broken units, and then has a large chunk that is utterly useless. But because all people see are the busted combos, all eldar get tarred with the same brush...
In 10th, you can see quite clearly what the issue is - the game has stripped other means of protection leaving only pro marine stats - T,W,Sv. So the eldar units with the most marine-like profiles are now the most effective - wraiths, jetbikes, tanks, knights.
The design philosophy of glass hammer units has been progressively written out of the game while the miniatures remain the same, so you have units that represent a game style paradigm that just doesn't currently exist.
The only way the T3 W1 elite super infantry the eldar have get a look in is if they possess high speed to get them physically out of sight/range of the enemy... you could push aspects to Sv3+/5+ and Sv2+/5+ for the heavy ones and it still wouldn't do much.
And so you end up with a chunk of the most fragile units in the game with no mechanic to keep them in play and the army devolves into its classic broken spam...
tauist wrote: IIRCGW has said in retrospect that people who played long enough ended up with "too big armies for the game" so the scope of the rules had to be increased. I dont even know if that was a problem in and of itself, if 3rd - 5th edition period is looked back as being in the goldilocks zone for the game.. so were consolidating vehicles into having toughness values and the introduction of stratagems steps too far? Or the reduction of wargear options?
I don't think those things helped. 3rd-5th was IMHO the sweet spot as far as size. Roughly company level: A few squads, a vehicle or two, maybe a walker, things like that. Basically the same size Bolt Action is now.
Don't forget that "normal" was designed to be 1500 then as well, so there's a 500 point inflation in game size even if points were 1:1. But I agree that size felt better.
Minor point, but I recall tournament games at 1750 in 3rd, and 1850 in 4th . . . ? I think?
The rulebook now promotes 2k and the players conform to that, in 3rd and 4th the rulebook recommended an average game was 1500 points, but primarily in the US, the tournament scene wanted more stuff on the table/less hard counters, so increased the game size. Or such was my understanding.
Edit: after a quick reread of a pdf, 3rd ed states the game is designed at any point value, recommends 1000, 1500 or 2000. Then states 1000 for a quick game, 1500 for an afternoon long game and larger over a weekend. GW events ran at 1500 as well.
^Yeah I dunno where the 1750 originated from, I'm just pretty sure the local tournament standard was more than 1500.
I still have a pic of my best performing SM army from 4th edition, and I'm 90% sure it was an 1850 pointer. I might have a pic of my Necron army from around then too. I'll have to see if I can dig one up.
Spoiler:
For yuks, maybe in the coming days I can take a picture of the 2K list I plan on using against a buddy of mine for 10th.
Insectum7 wrote: Also, it seems like balance is currently measured primarily by faction winrate, which is an extremely shallow metric.
It's a great primary metric, what would you suggest should be the primary metric?
I wouldn't so quickly suggest that there be a "primary" metric. But other things I would look for is diversity of build and usage of units for each faction. We should all understand by now that just because a few units in a codex can make a singular tournament winning list, we shouldn't say a codex is "fine" even when the other 90% of units in it never get used competitively.
So if Eldar are clapping everybody using a diverse roster it's fine? You diversify based on win rates. Win rate too high? Nerf overused units, increase balance and diversity. Win rate too low? Buff underused units, increase balance and diversity. If GW looked mainly at diversity they would ruin the game.
Hellebore wrote: In 10th, you can see quite clearly what the issue is - the game has stripped other means of protection leaving only pro marine stats - T,W,Sv. So the eldar units with the most marine-like profiles are now the most effective - wraiths, jetbikes, tanks, knights.
That's random, Wraithknights were awful in 8th and 9th if I recall correctly. Wave Serpents, Bikes, Knights were all awful in 6th and 7th when we had initiative and WS? Utter nonsense. How about 5th? Were Striking Scorpions and Guardian Squads the meta? How about in 8th when deep striking Guardian swarms and T3 Dark Reapers and Warp Spiders were meta? Or 9th when Swooping Hawks were unkillable?
Insectum7 wrote: ^Yeah I dunno where the 1750 originated from, I'm just pretty sure the local tournament standard was more than 1500.
I still have a pic of my best performing SM army from 4th edition, and I'm 90% sure it was an 1850 pointer. I might have a pic of my Necron army from around then too. I'll have to see if I can dig one up.
Spoiler:
For yuks, maybe in the coming days I can take a picture of the 2K list I plan on using against a buddy of mine for 10th.
I know that in the UK 1,500 was the norm here in the US it was 1,750 in 3rd, bumped up to 1,850 in 4th and 2k became the norm in 5th.
As for lists from back in the day 2010/2011..i have quite a few pics as i went to a couple of GTs in my area before i decided they were toxic cesspools of the worst kinds of players 99% of the time.
Here are a few of the nice looking and/or stand out armies..some of which do not even exist anymore like the praetorian guard.
Insectum7 wrote: Also, it seems like balance is currently measured primarily by faction winrate, which is an extremely shallow metric.
It's a great primary metric, what would you suggest should be the primary metric?
I wouldn't so quickly suggest that there be a "primary" metric. But other things I would look for is diversity of build and usage of units for each faction. We should all understand by now that just because a few units in a codex can make a singular tournament winning list, we shouldn't say a codex is "fine" even when the other 90% of units in it never get used competitively.
So if Eldar are clapping everybody using a diverse roster it's fine? You diversify based on win rates. Win rate too high? Nerf overused units, increase balance and diversity. Win rate too low? Buff underused units, increase balance and diversity. If GW looked mainly at diversity they would ruin the game.
Hellebore wrote: In 10th, you can see quite clearly what the issue is - the game has stripped other means of protection leaving only pro marine stats - T,W,Sv. So the eldar units with the most marine-like profiles are now the most effective - wraiths, jetbikes, tanks, knights.
That's random, Wraithknights were awful in 8th and 9th if I recall correctly. Wave Serpents, Bikes, Knights were all awful in 6th and 7th when we had initiative and WS? Utter nonsense. How about 5th? Were Striking Scorpions and Guardian Squads the meta? How about in 8th when deep striking Guardian swarms and T3 Dark Reapers and Warp Spiders were meta? Or 9th when Swooping Hawks were unkillable?
You're putting words in my mouth.
I was talking about T,W,Sv and how effective having those are in the current design.
Being the most effective now says nothing about what they were like before. You're using a fallacy of reciprocity, that just because I am saying they are great now, they must necessarily have been bad previously.
The game has always been slanted towards marine type stats, it's just been slowly stripped more and more until those are literally the only rules used to determine survivability.
Dark reapers and swooping hawks fall under this statement I made you didn't quote:
The only way the T3 W1 elite super infantry the eldar have get a look in is if they possess high speed to get them physically out of sight/range of the enemy... you could push aspects to Sv3+/5+ and Sv2+/5+ for the heavy ones and it still wouldn't do much.
Out of sight/range from guns or movement is the only thing the game has to keep these kinds of units alive.
I think 10th Ed. is a symptom, not a cause. There seems to be a bit of a general malaise in GW over the last while. As an example, over the past week I've been to three Warhammer stores across different countries (Dublin, Warsaw and Brighton). In the first there's no gaming permitted beyond intro games; the second only had a selection of customer-painted models in their single cabinet, most of which were examples of 'models of the month'; and the Brighton store doesn't have a miniatures display cabinet at all! I had no interactions with the staff beyond cursory hello (didn't even get that much in Brighton).
The most telling thing for me as a player, however, is that I picked up the new Marine codex in each shop, then put it back on the shelf without buying. I've bought every SM codex ever released thus far, but I don't see the value in doing it now. Maybe this is just me, but I do feel that, despite the amazing models GW are producing, the 40K game seems to be losing some of its direction and even relevance.
Wasn't 1750 and then 1850 some ITC crap they came up with? I do recall some tournaments being at 1999 + 1 so basically 2000 but limiting to one force organization chart, Because at 2K you got a second one. Then for some reason GW decided to focus on 2000 as the standard and make a lot of things not really work at 1000.
I wish the standard was still 1500. Hell I wish that a tournament out there would do it at 1500 just to show the difference. But chances are the people would complain about it even if it worked well.
Hellebore wrote:In 10th, you can see quite clearly what the issue is - the game has stripped other means of protection leaving only pro marine stats - T,W,Sv. So the eldar units with the most marine-like profiles are now the most effective - wraiths, jetbikes, tanks, knights.
By using the word So (bolded by me) you are linking the change in the game to what the most effective units are. I'm not putting anything in your mouth. It's a very clear logical argument, the conclusion just doesn't follow the premises. Wraiths, jetbikes, tanks and knights being good has nothing to do with stripping WS and Initiative from the game as proven by them being good before and bad after.
Could you please explain your definition of effectiveness you used for the post I quoted? Your definition of the fallacy of reciprocity seems wrong, you're probably thinking of something else I think I know what you're speaking of but it is unclear to me.
Wasn't 1750 and then 1850 some ITC crap they came up with? I do recall some tournaments being at 1999 + 1 so basically 2000 but limiting to one force organization chart, Because at 2K you got a second one. Then for some reason GW decided to focus on 2000 as the standard and make a lot of things not really work at 1000.
I wish the standard was still 1500. Hell I wish that a tournament out there would do it at 1500 just to show the difference. But chances are the people would complain about it even if it worked well.
Agreed. I suspect the 2000 from GW is likely just pandering to the ITC player base as they needed them on board to unify the playerbase with a single rules platform again. "It's what the people want!" sort of thing.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I feel it's more that GW vacillates between the two extremes, seemingly at random, and with no real indication that they understand what they're doing or why they're doing it.
10th saw a reduction in bloat, but, typically, went too far
That's GW's basic modus operandi. I call it the rubber band effect.
and saw them remove too many things that didn't need such massive reductions (removal of combi-weapons and certain specialised melee weapons, the complete lack of variety and choice with psychic powers).
We're veering very close to the "simulation vs abstraction" argument, and that's an ugly place.
If only some of us were warning about calling everything in the armies we don't play "bloat".
But combining both of those points into one, I'd advise sitting back and waiting for the eventual course corrections. Another typical blind spot for GW is 40K Melee. They changed to 8th and got rid of all the bonus attacks (Charging, two CCWs, etc) and slowly re-added similar stuff. Yet again in 10th they have treated CCW as an afterthought - Lascannon jumped to S12, Power Fists and Thunderhammers are still S8. I'm assuming/hoping somewhere - probably just before 11th - they'll figure that out and the traditional "x2" weapons go to "x3" or even better, borrow from the Ballistus claws etc with a two profile "mode" choice. more attacks at x2 D3/D4ish for Terminators/Gravis equivalents, fewer S12 D4/5/6ish for vs Vehicles
vict0988 wrote: So if Eldar are clapping everybody using a diverse roster it's fine? You diversify based on win rates. Win rate too high? Nerf overused units, increase balance and diversity. Win rate too low? Buff underused units, increase balance and diversity. If GW looked mainly at diversity they would ruin the game.
Then circa 8th Ed GW looks at, say, Tyranid win rates, sees it's around 50%, ignores that it's based on a couple of overperforming units to shore up an otherwise weak codex, and calls it a day.
And the result is a game that is dull as dishwater because you've got a few mandatory units to make a credible list and a bunch of crap that is never taken, while GW says job's done because the win rate is what it should be.
Balancing by win rates alone is a sure way to produce a boring, repetitive game and yes, list diversity ought to be a priority if your goal is a fun game with longevity and not a puzzle exercise for tournament players to solve. Win rates are a good way to assess external balance and a lousy way to assess internal balance.
My entire problem with their approach, beyond the fact it seems to be just kneejerk buffing/nerfing based on what did well/poorly at the last few GTs, is that win rate means feth all if every list at a tournament is using the same 20% of the codex, while 80% of it is garbage.
If a faction has a 55% win rate (that's good, right? Let's pretend it is anyway), is it in a good spot/balanced if the lists played are the same 20% or so of the codex, and completely ignore most of the book?
Insectum7 wrote: Also, it seems like balance is currently measured primarily by faction winrate, which is an extremely shallow metric.
It's a great primary metric, what would you suggest should be the primary metric? Player enjoyment? If Eldar players are having a good time then them being the focal point of game balance is fine? A lot of good things come naturally from a 50% win rate. The game lead has also been saying clever things for the past year on game balance, if that's your main concern with 10th then worrying does not make sense. Poor launch but 6th, 8th and 9th had quite bad balance as well.
Sledgehammer wrote: 8th edition drained the soul from 40k. 10th edition just took out a lot of redundant and unnecessary gak that honestly added very little to the game.
Souls are overrated if that's the case.
Win rate only cares about the ability for the faction to field a list that can win against other armies. If Orks had absolutely garbage units but grots were something like 1ppm and could just flood the board with so much fodder that it would be impossible to kill them all while the sheer volume of dice being rolled just drowned the opponent in 6s. Tournament games never come to a proper conclusion due to how long it takes to play so the win rate is close to 50% due to running out of time but the end result is inevitably in favor of the grot spam. Then that isn't a good army to play nor play against.
Simply put a faction where 80% of the unit options are not good but one or two units are so overturned that you build your army around. You can have a good win rate despite the faction being generally quite terrible outside of a particular list. That isn't a good place for a faction or the game to be unless you only care about winning.
Also you can have fairly skewed results with selection bias as the lists that result in those win % are almost always optimized lists and viable factions. A faction that gets roughly a 50% win rate vs a healthy mix of factions is going to look different than a faction that that has a 50% win rate when 90% of their games are against the top 4 factions while it's win rate against the rest of the factions is probably in the 80% range. Tau in general during 7th were decent but not top tier in tournaments and yet they towered over a lot of the weaker factions. Their good yet not great win % didn't really explain anything about why Tau dominated weaker factions while generally struggling against the stronger tournament lists.
Even more importantly ARE things like player enjoyment. Frankly a lot of tournament lists are horribly unfun to play with/against and yet tournament players will often play them because they win games. Using 7th edition examples, the bark bark star was a list that was powerful yet wasn't fun to play as or against. Or something like the entirely un-thematic Stormsurge spam where they would do as much if not more damage in melee than range due to abusing volume of stomp attacks.
Balance passes and general design work based on tournament results for a game that is woefully ill suited for tournament play results in a lot of bad design choices that suck the life out of the game. Again using 7th but if you played a game against an opponent who was fielding an army that was relatively similar in power to yours then the game was a ton of fun. Granted it took some work to figure out a relatively balanced matchup but if both parties wanted to play a fun game of 40k then it could be done. Playing 8th by contrast for me was just DREADFULLY dull. I never had so little fun playing 40k as I did in 8th regardless of winning, losing, or having a close fight because the core gameplay of the revamped game was low sodium saltine cracker levels of bland. Tournament balance was much better in 8th but the depth and quality of play for people who like complexity in gameplay took a massive nose dive.
Wasn't 1750 and then 1850 some ITC crap they came up with? I do recall some tournaments being at 1999 + 1 so basically 2000 but limiting to one force organization chart, Because at 2K you got a second one. Then for some reason GW decided to focus on 2000 as the standard and make a lot of things not really work at 1000.
I wish the standard was still 1500. Hell I wish that a tournament out there would do it at 1500 just to show the difference. But chances are the people would complain about it even if it worked well.
Our local shops generic standard back in the 3e-6e era was 2k pts, 1 detachment.
We'd adjust the pts (downwards) if we were playing multi-player games.
I don't recall what the pts limits were for the tourneys I attended back then. I just read the entry, built to whatever limit & gave it no more thought. I vaguely remember some being different values, some having various restrictions, etc.
Currently the shop default is nominally 2k. But in practice it's more a Discord post of "anyone want to play x pts, time/day?".
On wanting a different standard....
Outside of tourney play, just set your own limit.
If you only want to play 1500 pt games? Then let that be known to those you play with & only accept games at that lv.
Insectum7 wrote: Also, it seems like balance is currently measured primarily by faction winrate, which is an extremely shallow metric.
It's a great primary metric, what would you suggest should be the primary metric?
I wouldn't so quickly suggest that there be a "primary" metric. But other things I would look for is diversity of build and usage of units for each faction. We should all understand by now that just because a few units in a codex can make a singular tournament winning list, we shouldn't say a codex is "fine" even when the other 90% of units in it never get used competitively.
So if Eldar are clapping everybody using a diverse roster it's fine? You diversify based on win rates. Win rate too high? Nerf overused units, increase balance and diversity. Win rate too low? Buff underused units, increase balance and diversity. If GW looked mainly at diversity they would ruin the game.
That's why I wrote that there shouldn't necessarily be a "primary" metric. You look at multiple areas of data. Faction winrate, diversity of builds within a faction, faction popularity, which types of builds win which missions, etc.
Winrate cannot be the only metric, but it is the primary metric for external balance, and external balance is important.
5th would have been a much better edition if GW actually fixed the power lists and buffed the underperforming factions instead of the "it is a beer and pretzels" nonsense.
Vankraken wrote: Win rate only cares about the ability for the faction to field a list that can win against other armies. If Orks had absolutely garbage units but grots were something like 1ppm and could just flood the board with so much fodder that it would be impossible to kill them all while the sheer volume of dice being rolled just drowned the opponent in 6s. Tournament games never come to a proper conclusion due to how long it takes to play so the win rate is close to 50% due to running out of time but the end result is inevitably in favor of the grot spam. Then that isn't a good army to play nor play against.
Yes, if that happened it would be bad. But we can look through the lists and see that this hasn't really been the case.
Ultimately if most factions are +/- 50%, then you should have a varied meta. This should in turn mean the bulk of your codex (assumingly its pointed vaguely accurately) can be viable in at least some games.
The difference is when you have some factions running at say 70% win rate (and they can, as we saw with Eldar, splash into almost anything barring the core of OP units were there).
The reason is that the whole meta is warped to cope with them. Many factions will have barely one list that stands a chance into such lists, and so everyone runs that and abandons the rest of the codex.
I feel the performance of Tau in 7th was explained by being dramatically advantaged if they went first as opposed to second. In a tournament, the odds of you going first game after game obviously recede.
(This wasn't unique to Tau, from memory most factions wanted to go first, but some coped with being second better than others).
GW have sometimes taken this into account. Its unclear whether everyone's complaining about it in 10th though.
For me it has. I can't even set up my gaming table photo realistically anymore like SS82 or MWG style as these comp simps in my area follow the BS terrain layouts GW made. Also my 3 armies are garbage tier, which ruins it further. Can't play with my beautifully painted models on beautiful tables. Just infinite fighting over the exact same destroyed buildings, snooze fest.
Gibblets wrote: For me it has. I can't even set up my gaming table photo realistically anymore like SS82 or MWG style as these comp simps in my area follow the BS terrain layouts GW made. Also my 3 armies are garbage tier, which ruins it further. Can't play with my beautifully painted models on beautiful tables. Just infinite fighting over the exact same destroyed buildings, snooze fest.
The terrain is probably the worst of the worst. Anything visually interesting or unique is gone, replaced with boring L-shaped ruins because "it's balanced", and the game itself makes anything less than that busted because of shooting so if you're not using it people are always like "you need more terrain". Gone is the desire for an interesting themed board.
I wonder how many people here have played 10th extensively. Speaking from a purely competitive standpoint, the internal balance for many factions is the best I've ever seen. I can't believe how much emphasis there is on movement and utility compared to raw damage. I've never played an edition where so much of my collection was playable. List building has been a lot of fun. Stratagems are largely excellent and impactful. Morale matters, and in some cases a lot -- it frequently results in big points swings if you know what you're doing.
Yes, we lost a lot of flavor and customization. I'm more of a narrative player/hobbyist myself to be honest. But in terms of pure abstract gameplay, as someone who prefers narrative but can also find enjoyment in solving a well-designed puzzle, things have been pretty great.
Even more importantly ARE things like player enjoyment. Frankly a lot of tournament lists are horribly unfun to play with/against and yet tournament players will often play them because they win games. Using 7th edition examples, the bark bark star was a list that was powerful yet wasn't fun to play as or against. Or something like the entirely un-thematic Stormsurge spam where they would do as much if not more damage in melee than range due to abusing volume of stomp attacks.
Just want to second this point.
A lot of tournament lists are incredibly boring to play against and look no more fun to play.
Gibblets wrote: For me it has. I can't even set up my gaming table photo realistically anymore like SS82 or MWG style as these comp simps in my area follow the BS terrain layouts GW made. ... Can't play with my beautifully painted models on beautiful tables. Just infinite fighting over the exact same destroyed buildings, snooze fest.
And this is why symmetrical tables have always been and always will be utter cancer.
I don't know what moron came up with the notion that tables at tournament games must be set and perfectly uniform, but I really want to punch them.
vipoid wrote: A lot of tournament lists are incredibly boring to play against and look no more fun to play.
I mean let's have a look at GW's most recentDunning Kruger Comedy Fest Metawatch article:
Spoiler:
Does that look like fun? To make Sisters work you've got to bring not one, not two, but three special characters? Makes me wonder when does it stop being "Your guys" and become "Their guys" if your list contains multiple special characters. I imagine that if Marines didn't have the Chapter distinction, we'd be seeing lists with multi-chapter Special Characters as well. Also, near as I can tell, the Death Cult Assassins are there just to fulfil the Dedicated Transport requirement.
The World Eater one ain't much better?
Spoiler:
Now in WE's defence, they only have half a Codex, but again, we've got a list using 2 of their 3 special character (and given how many WE lists I've seen with Kharn, I'm genuinely surprised he's not there as well). Also cool WE list with its single unit of Berzerkers and loads of... spawn...
But I guess it's all fine as long as the mighty win rates are on track.
artific3r wrote: I wonder how many people here have played 10th extensively. Speaking from a purely competitive standpoint, the internal balance for many factions is the best I've ever seen. I can't believe how much emphasis there is on movement and utility compared to raw damage. I've never played an edition where so much of my collection was playable. List building has been a lot of fun. Stratagems are largely excellent and impactful. Morale matters, and in some cases a lot -- it frequently results in big points swings if you know what you're doing.
Yes, we lost a lot of flavor and customization. I'm more of a narrative player/hobbyist myself to be honest. But in terms of pure abstract gameplay, as someone who prefers narrative but can also find enjoyment in solving a well-designed puzzle, things have been pretty great.
I have not played 10th, and I won't discount your experience, but for me 10th opened up by sending a hefty number of my units to Legends.
This is somewhat random but evidence of the elusive "why is something an option if it's not in the box" and sort of upset customer GW wants to avoid I assume with nmnr:
Dudeface wrote: This is somewhat random but evidence of the elusive "why is something an option if it's not in the box" and sort of upset customer GW wants to avoid I assume with nmnr:
I mention this as consolidation of options has come up a lot.
I'd argue that's an expectation that GW has the power quell by setting product expectations and promoting a culture of customization and part swapping.
. . .
Or maybe just including more sprues in a character kit that costs 40 f***ing dollars.
Wasn't 1750 and then 1850 some ITC crap they came up with? I do recall some tournaments being at 1999 + 1 so basically 2000 but limiting to one force organization chart, Because at 2K you got a second one. Then for some reason GW decided to focus on 2000 as the standard and make a lot of things not really work at 1000.
I wish the standard was still 1500. Hell I wish that a tournament out there would do it at 1500 just to show the difference. But chances are the people would complain about it even if it worked well.
No the points numbers existed before ITC did. in the main rulebook it has always listed the original FOC 2/6/3/3/3 as only working up to 2,500 points above that point you get into apocalypse level games where the FOC is meaningless and is ignored.
Gibblets wrote:For me it has. I can't even set up my gaming table photo realistically anymore like SS82 or MWG style as these comp simps in my area follow the BS terrain layouts GW made. Also my 3 armies are garbage tier, which ruins it further. Can't play with my beautifully painted models on beautiful tables. Just infinite fighting over the exact same destroyed buildings, snooze fest.
As HBMC also pointed out....if the table doesn't look inviting then it does not draw in the players. having a building sitting int he middle of the road because there is a mirror one on the other side doesn't make for a good table that forces players to adapt to the terrain. or enhance the setting.
As a player who has been playing miniature games since 1987 (battle tech) and 40K (since 2001) i have so many minis now i will never need to buy anything else, what i have become is a terrain aficionado. i have complete sets designed for specific game mats i have collected including for 40K alone a set for-necrons, tau, imperial city, space marine outpost, admech factory, imperial guard outpost. then there is all the mid evil terrain for warmachine, WWII style terrain for DUST, small scale terrain for classic battle tech or epic 40K, space terrain, victory at sea micro naval terrain, general desert, woodlands, a bunch of cyberpunk terrain for infinity and so on. If anybody has seen my battle report pics you can see how some of these table look. it draws players into the game, into the setting and generally adds an extra positive element to war gaming.
Dudeface wrote: This is somewhat random but evidence of the elusive "why is something an option if it's not in the box" and sort of upset customer GW wants to avoid I assume with nmnr:
I mention this as consolidation of options has come up a lot.
I'd argue that's an expectation that GW has the power quell by setting product expectations and promoting a culture of customization and part swapping.
. . .
Or maybe just including more sprues in a character kit that costs 40 f***ing dollars.
What. GW actually putting enough sprues and bits on sprues in an box?
Are you nuts that could cut into their pure profit margin.
artific3r wrote: I wonder how many people here have played 10th extensively. Speaking from a purely competitive standpoint, the internal balance for many factions is the best I've ever seen. I can't believe how much emphasis there is on movement and utility compared to raw damage. I've never played an edition where so much of my collection was playable. List building has been a lot of fun. Stratagems are largely excellent and impactful. Morale matters, and in some cases a lot -- it frequently results in big points swings if you know what you're doing.
Yes, we lost a lot of flavor and customization. I'm more of a narrative player/hobbyist myself to be honest. But in terms of pure abstract gameplay, as someone who prefers narrative but can also find enjoyment in solving a well-designed puzzle, things have been pretty great.
I have not played 10th, and I won't discount your experience, but for me 10th opened up by sending a hefty number of my units to Legends.
For me it's not about Legends vs not Legends, it's about functional vs non-functional datasheets. The percentage of Legends units before 9e was zero, whereas the percentage of mechanically useless datasheets was... very high. Didn't matter that they weren't "Legends", their rules were so non-functional that they might as well not exist against players who are actually trying to win the game.
Meanwhile in 10e it feels like more units than ever before from the cheapest chaff to the biggest baddest elites have some role to play in an effective army composition. Across game after game I've found that the biggest heroes turn out to be the random low-point trash units running around playing the mission rather than the usual unkillable deathstars or devastating gunlines. The significantly reduced emphasis on pure killing has been my favorite thing about modern 40k.
Dudeface wrote: This is somewhat random but evidence of the elusive "why is something an option if it's not in the box" and sort of upset customer GW wants to avoid I assume with nmnr:
I mention this as consolidation of options has come up a lot.
I'd argue that's an expectation that GW has the power quell by setting product expectations and promoting a culture of customization and part swapping.
. . .
Or maybe just including more sprues in a character kit that costs 40 f***ing dollars.
What. GW actually putting enough sprues and bits on sprues in an box?
Are you nuts that could cut into their pure profit margin.
Anyone else remember these?
Every character would come with a sprue of arms and a batch of options, they packed them into that tiny blister alongside the metal model. People be all like "Sprues are so packed nowadays!" but if the box is half empty I kinda question the point.
I don't know what moron came up with the notion that tables at tournament games must be set and perfectly uniform, but I really want to punch them.
Asymmetry is a super important part of setting up tables for Infinity and picking a side based on the matchup is an important skill to develop.
Infinity tables are automatically nicer looking than 40k tables.
As for named characters being "necessary" for certain factions, sure its boring, but i personally can easily handwave it away and proxy a custom character using these datasheet for example.
artific3r wrote: I wonder how many people here have played 10th extensively. Speaking from a purely competitive standpoint, the internal balance for many factions is the best I've ever seen. I can't believe how much emphasis there is on movement and utility compared to raw damage. I've never played an edition where so much of my collection was playable. List building has been a lot of fun. Stratagems are largely excellent and impactful. Morale matters, and in some cases a lot -- it frequently results in big points swings if you know what you're doing.
Yes, we lost a lot of flavor and customization. I'm more of a narrative player/hobbyist myself to be honest. But in terms of pure abstract gameplay, as someone who prefers narrative but can also find enjoyment in solving a well-designed puzzle, things have been pretty great.
I have not played 10th, and I won't discount your experience, but for me 10th opened up by sending a hefty number of my units to Legends.
For me it's not about Legends vs not Legends, it's about functional vs non-functional datasheets. The percentage of Legends units before 9e was zero, whereas the percentage of mechanically useless datasheets was... very high. Didn't matter that they weren't "Legends", their rules were so non-functional that they might as well not exist against players who are actually trying to win the game.
Meanwhile in 10e it feels like more units than ever before from the cheapest chaff to the biggest baddest elites have some role to play in an effective army composition. Across game after game I've found that the biggest heroes turn out to be the random low-point trash units running around playing the mission rather than the usual unkillable deathstars or devastating gunlines. The significantly reduced emphasis on pure killing has been my favorite thing about modern 40k.
Oh I get it, having more datasheets being useable is a great thing to have, and I applaud GW for it. But it's a net loss for me if they're removing my units and options from the game at the same time.
I don't know what moron came up with the notion that tables at tournament games must be set and perfectly uniform, but I really want to punch them.
Asymmetry is a super important part of setting up tables for Infinity and picking a side based on the matchup is an important skill to develop.
Infinity tables are automatically nicer looking than 40k tables.
I remember saying this here on Dakkadakka a few years ago and Mike Brandt himself came online to tell me I was wrong and picking table sides is not a skill.
artific3r wrote: I wonder how many people here have played 10th extensively. Speaking from a purely competitive standpoint, the internal balance for many factions is the best I've ever seen. I can't believe how much emphasis there is on movement and utility compared to raw damage. I've never played an edition where so much of my collection was playable. List building has been a lot of fun. Stratagems are largely excellent and impactful. Morale matters, and in some cases a lot -- it frequently results in big points swings if you know what you're doing.
Yes, we lost a lot of flavor and customization. I'm more of a narrative player/hobbyist myself to be honest. But in terms of pure abstract gameplay, as someone who prefers narrative but can also find enjoyment in solving a well-designed puzzle, things have been pretty great.
I have not played 10th, and I won't discount your experience, but for me 10th opened up by sending a hefty number of my units to Legends.
legends are still legal to play with tbh, unless you're spamming tournaments but i don't think its your kind of playstyle considering the contents of your posts
Gibblets wrote: For me it has. I can't even set up my gaming table photo realistically anymore like SS82 or MWG style as these comp simps in my area follow the BS terrain layouts GW made. Also my 3 armies are garbage tier, which ruins it further. Can't play with my beautifully painted models on beautiful tables. Just infinite fighting over the exact same destroyed buildings, snooze fest.
Outside of a tourny, why are you letting others dictate how the terrain gets set up?
You should both be having a say in it.
And if it's actually YOUR table? As in you're hosting the game? Then don't invite the simps over. Or if you do, just inform them of how things will be.
Dudeface wrote: This is somewhat random but evidence of the elusive "why is something an option if it's not in the box" and sort of upset customer GW wants to avoid I assume with nmnr:
I mention this as consolidation of options has come up a lot.
it's kinda understandable tbh.
GW has three options :
1. Put more bits in their kits (so it costs them more money to produce)
2. Allow conversions/third party (which bit them in the ass in the past)
3. NMNR ++
Now GW has poorly implemented the 3rd one considering all the deviations we see (thunder hammer + shield in that example but theres many more).
Now i'm not saying its a good thing, i'm just saying its an understandable decision coming for a public company.
I don't know what moron came up with the notion that tables at tournament games must be set and perfectly uniform, but I really want to punch them.
Asymmetry is a super important part of setting up tables for Infinity and picking a side based on the matchup is an important skill to develop.
Infinity tables are automatically nicer looking than 40k tables.
I remember saying this here on Dakkadakka a few years ago and Mike Brandt himself came online to tell me I was wrong and picking table sides is not a skill.
And now we get boring "roll a dice and the loser picks the side and starts deploying first"
And then "roll a dice and the winner HAS to play first"
The start of the game is so scuffed, i'd say it's my main dissapointment with current 40k. Once the game is going, i find 10th to be really enjoyable
H.B.M.C. wrote: I mean let's have a look at GW's most recentDunning Kruger Comedy Fest Metawatch article:
Spoiler:
Does that look like fun? To make Sisters work you've got to bring not one, not two, but three special characters? Makes me wonder when does it stop being "Your guys" and become "Their guys" if your list contains multiple special characters. I imagine that if Marines didn't have the Chapter distinction, we'd be seeing lists with multi-chapter Special Characters as well. Also, near as I can tell, the Death Cult Assassins are there just to fulfil the Dedicated Transport requirement.
I absolutely agree on the "Your guys" vs. "Their guys" aspect.
Thing is, though, so many options have been removed that even a lot of generic characters are functionally identical to special characters because both are locked into fixed builds/wargear.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I mean let's have a look at GW's most recentDunning Kruger Comedy Fest Metawatch article:
Spoiler:
Does that look like fun? To make Sisters work you've got to bring not one, not two, but three special characters? Makes me wonder when does it stop being "Your guys" and become "Their guys" if your list contains multiple special characters. I imagine that if Marines didn't have the Chapter distinction, we'd be seeing lists with multi-chapter Special Characters as well. Also, near as I can tell, the Death Cult Assassins are there just to fulfil the Dedicated Transport requirement.
I absolutely agree on the "Your guys" vs. "Their guys" aspect.
Thing is, though, so many options have been removed that even a lot of generic characters are functionally identical to special characters because both are locked into fixed builds/wargear.
HH 2.0 does characters best, and i've played 1 game of it lol.
It is my table and I wish good luck to someone trying finding anyone in my area who can handle a table that isn't GW standard. FFS in 9th most of the gaks around here didn't know how to use forests, walls and scatter debris in game, I had to teach them on my table in game. If it's not an L shaped ruin they can't imagine how to use it. So lucky me that means 0 games.
artific3r wrote: I wonder how many people here have played 10th extensively. Speaking from a purely competitive standpoint, the internal balance for many factions is the best I've ever seen. I can't believe how much emphasis there is on movement and utility compared to raw damage. I've never played an edition where so much of my collection was playable. List building has been a lot of fun. Stratagems are largely excellent and impactful. Morale matters, and in some cases a lot -- it frequently results in big points swings if you know what you're doing.
Yes, we lost a lot of flavor and customization. I'm more of a narrative player/hobbyist myself to be honest. But in terms of pure abstract gameplay, as someone who prefers narrative but can also find enjoyment in solving a well-designed puzzle, things have been pretty great.
I have not played 10th, and I won't discount your experience, but for me 10th opened up by sending a hefty number of my units to Legends.
legends are still legal to play with tbh, unless you're spamming tournaments but i don't think its your kind of playstyle considering the contents of your posts
"Tournament adjacent" culture is something that I've spent a lot of time in, and would totally play more of if I could, so units in Legends becomes problematic.
As an example of 10e's reduced emphasis on killing, my changeling was an absolute hero in my last game, not because he sat in a clump of units buffing everyone around him doing nothing as he would have done in previous editions, but because he successfully held my backfield objective by himself after getting charged by a friggin' Yncarne.
The changeling has a bunch of unique rules where if you want to attack him you have to pass a morale test. If you fail it, you can't attack him, and your Objective Control goes to 0. Doesn't matter if you're a primarch, an eldar god, or a swarm of 50 gants. If you charge a Changeling to try and sweep him off an objective, squishy as he is, there is always a 30-40% chance you will do absolutely nothing -- you won't kill him, you won't take the point, and you will lose the ability to use potentially key stratagems over the next turn (remember, just about all stratagems are very good now). Huge 5-10 point swing right there, not due to raw power but due to well-designed mechanics.
Those David and Goliath scenarios of the cheeky little guys outplaying the big scary monsters are all over the place in 10th. In the past the only metrics that mattered were scary unit and scarier unit. It was all very one-dimensional. With the new missions and objective control rules, the little guys really start to have their moments of glory, without being super killy or durable, or acting as some boring, passive buff piece.
Like everyone else I wish there was more flavor. But mechanically speaking I find 10e a lot more compelling than any edition I've played thus far.
My issue is still with how they equate "balanced faction" with "tournament win rate", when IMHO if the faction does well in tournaments but with one single "meta" build, that actually means the (inter-faction) balance is awful and isn't something that should be lauded. But the tournament players don't care WHAT works in a faction, as long as there's one meta choice, and will happily say there's balance if every faction has one meta build, when that's not at all the case.
artific3r wrote: ). Huge 5-10 point swing right there, not due to raw power but due to well-designed mechanics.
Or, looking at it from another point of view, a huge 5-10 point swing right there, not due to raw power or anything a player does, but due to blind luck of a single high-variance, high-impact totally unpredictable roll.
artific3r wrote: I wonder how many people here have played 10th extensively. Speaking from a purely competitive standpoint, the internal balance for many factions is the best I've ever seen. I can't believe how much emphasis there is on movement and utility compared to raw damage. I've never played an edition where so much of my collection was playable. List building has been a lot of fun. Stratagems are largely excellent and impactful. Morale matters, and in some cases a lot -- it frequently results in big points swings if you know what you're doing.
Yes, we lost a lot of flavor and customization. I'm more of a narrative player/hobbyist myself to be honest. But in terms of pure abstract gameplay, as someone who prefers narrative but can also find enjoyment in solving a well-designed puzzle, things have been pretty great.
I've played around 40 games of 10th, and internal balance I've found is... weird. Some armies are surprisingly internally balanced with a handful of outliers (Vanilla Marines, Tau), some have only certain sections internally balanced (Eldar [aspects suck], Guard) and some are just down in the dumps requiring specific units to try and bring them up and if you deviate from that, you lose (GSC, Admech, Sisters)
artific3r wrote: ). Huge 5-10 point swing right there, not due to raw power but due to well-designed mechanics.
Or, looking at it from another point of view, a huge 5-10 point swing right there, not due to raw power or anything a player does, but due to blind luck of a single high-variance, high-impact totally unpredictable roll.
What about it is unpredictable? You know the precise odds of triggering the Changeling's ability before you charge. And it's an ability that is easily defeated by simply committing a second unit to the charge. You don't even have to commit particularly killy units. The changeling is squishy as hell. The counterplay is to attack it with two of literally anything. What makes this scenario interesting is that unlike previous editions where the only axis that ever mattered was how killy/durable a unit was, 10e rules enable slow, squishy, low-damage units like the Changeling to come out on top in a 1v1 duel against something as mobile, killy, and durable as an eldar god. This is only possible because of GW's increased focus on gameplay over purely lore-driven design.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ProfSrlojohn wrote: some have only certain sections internally balanced (Eldar [aspects suck], Guard) and some are just down in the dumps requiring specific units to try and bring them up and if you deviate from that, you lose (GSC, Admech, Sisters)
It's true that internal balance is not perfect. It likely never will be as I suspect it is a conscious decision by GW to ensure there is always a rotation of viable and unviable units every edition. You know, to keep you buying things. That's why banshees are trash now, why planes and reapers were trash last edition (after their sins in 8th) and are still trash now. Since this is a business-driven design decision, I don't expect this to change.
What's more important though is that within the pool of functional units there is a good level of variety in listbuilding. I'd argue that as long as you're approaching the game from a mechanical standpoint (and not fluff) the variety we're seeing now is better than it's ever been. I miss the flavor for sure, but we did get some pretty cool things in return.
Regarding the discussion of balance I would draw comparison as I chronically do now when discussing 40k's woes, to historicals The entire idea of having to establish a perfect equilibrium of balance between armies is not only impossible, but stupid as the problem lies not with any state of balance but with the entire approach to the wargame that competitive play introduces. Rather than treating it as an experience wherein one might even try to learn playing the game, such as putting yourself into outmanned scenarios or the like, gameplay has always been pushed around these specific, completely abstracted from any common sense of a battlefield, tournament style setups where two as equal as possible forces collide over arbitrary objectives where a win state can include losing 90% of your army provided you killed 100% of the opposing side. No gak games last for four hours when you have two forces grinding themselves down willy nilly. It also just creates a poisoned framework from which there's no win, you're never going to get that perfect balance, and striving for it you might eradicate what makes one force unique.
For example in Field of Glory, if I bring a list of Irishmen circa 1300 up against the English list of 1300, I'm in a rough fething spot to say the least because obviously, Irish aren't really known for having a fabulously equipped militant class at the time and I'm coping with a lot of medium foot that will outright lose any headfirst engagement. Which is why such a force would never seek such engagement in the first place and having an Irish army face an English one on flat, featureless plains terrain represents a decisive defeat 10 days ago whenever some Irish lord thought that army maneuver was a great idea. That's why wargaming is about scenarios, campaigns, objectives, terrain, morale, etc.
I would love to get into historicals someday. As I understand it, 40k is not really a wargame in the traditional sense. 30k leans that direction but I'd assume there are still plenty of differences.
artific3r wrote: I would love to get into historicals someday. As I understand it, 40k is not really a wargame in the traditional sense. 30k leans that direction but I'd assume there are still plenty of differences.
They're so cheap you can literally just get two armies for the price of a single 40k one, or even less, and forcibly loop some unfortunate friend or family member into the hobby.
40k has never really been played as an historical.
Once upon a time GW books came with little scenarios with somewhat defined forces to try to simulate a lore battle, but I don't think I have ever met anyone that actually played those.
Thus comparing 40k to historicals is kinda pointless, because the community will never play it as an historical.
Interestingly enough, my buddy got into 30k recently and was talking about how it had more "soul" than 40k. I suppose what he meant by that was that 30k has a greater focus on storytelling and is generally closer to the experience of traditional wargaming.
Modern 40k is definitely moving away from that and towards something more like a competitive TCG. Your "deck" is less an expression of your narrative interests, and more an expression of your gameplay style. Whether or not that's positive depends on the kind of game you're looking for. For a lot of people it's very positive. For many others the game has lost its soul. Personally I enjoy all kinds of games, and am enthusiastic about finding enjoyment in new experiences. Of course that won't be the case for everyone.
artific3r wrote: Interestingly enough, my buddy got into 30k recently and was talking about how it had more "soul" than 40k. I suppose what he meant by that was that 30k has a greater focus on storytelling and is generally closer to the experience of traditional wargaming.
Modern 40k is definitely moving away from that and towards something more like a competitive TCG. Your "deck" is less an expression of your narrative interests, and more an expression of your gameplay style. Whether or not that's positive depends on the kind of game you're looking for. For a lot of people it's very positive. For many others the game has lost its soul. Personally I enjoy all kinds of games, and am enthusiastic about finding enjoyment in new experiences. Of course that won't be the case for everyone.
I've heard that a lot about 30k, that it attracts people who are way more chill and want to tell a story, not "here's my competitive list" like 40k. Sure you get the powergamers sometimes, but they tend to be weeded out in 30k because most people don't want that crap, so will ignore them.
What sucks about HH is that there's no Xenos. It just can't be a replacement for 40k. 40k is where the fun, creativity, and personality should be. Not in some fluff-spank "pseudo-historical".
I'm super excited about starting a 30k legion someday for that exact reason. Just a totally different flavor of game, which is alright in my book. Also super hyped for Legions Imperialis. I just hope I can find some opponents. Wasn't able to find anyone to fight my Tempestus maniple in AT over the past 3 years :(
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Insectum7 wrote: 40k is where the fun, creativity, and personality should be. Not in some fluff-spank "pseudo-historical".
This highlights another subset of 40k fans that's been getting neglected lately. Those who really enjoy the wide-open, highly-personalized, highly creative, expressive aspects of the setting will not be satisfied by 30k. There might be some overlap between this group and the historicals group, but they are not quite the same. If GW was smart they would find a way to build a product for this group. But I think that's hard, because you cannot match the sheer size and scope of mainline 40k without a lot of money coming in, and it's precisely that scope that makes 40k great for the really creative fans.
The new ones are only a couple years old, and yet they look completely out of place with the brand new ones coming out, to where it looks awkward having both types next to each other. It's ridiculous. There's no reason each new set has to be larger than the previous ones. On top of that, they just feel hollow. Like I have looked a old battle reports from 5th edition, and while the overall quality is definitely better now, they don't look nearly as good.
But we had a dire period in 9th. Now it wasn't that bad, but Covid hit. Lots of players took time out. And for 
