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

Again GW's rules approach is just baffling because it never really seems to have a focus beyond change for the sake of change. Even when there is a clear focus its undone by the next edition changing that focus; or by making the focus so extreme that it becomes a problem of its own

It isn't a bug it's a feature, like loot boxes- the focus is change for the sake of model sales. the era of wargaming nerds who created the game for other nerds to play are long gone. GW already flat out told us they are a model company that happens to have a game attached to their model line. the game is just a vehicle to drive model sales as such the 3 year pump and dump cycle makes perfect sense.

Which is why you should be a hobby/modeler/collector fist before the game even enters your mind.

Rules are mutable...minis are forever

Racerguy180 wrote:
Which is why you should be a hobby/modeler/collector fist before the game even enters your mind.

Rules are mutable...minis are forever

Or you can enjoy the hobby however you like; whether that's gaming, building, painting, the books and lore...

vict0988 wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
I don't disagree about the minutiae of 8th Ed's implementation of close combat affording some opportunity for player skill, but I would contend that it was

1. Unintended by GW and largely based on loopholes (eg tri-pointing, the consolidation trick),

2. Generally more about whether you know the tricks or not than about making contextually relevant gameplay decisions, and most of all

3. A collection of fiddly mechanics that went against the general scale and conventions of the game (ie, making decisions at a squad level) and instead involved micromanagement of millimeter positioning of individuals models.

So yeah I'll agree that it was there, but it was a bad system and felt more like a gotcha than a deliberate mechanic, so I don't hold it as a like-value replacement for all the decision-based systems thrown out in the 7th->8th transition. The choice of whether to fall back from CC is a better example of a core rules based decision added in 8th, but again GW kinda screwed up that one by making it a no-brainer that defanged melee entirely.

Like I said before, it's not that 8th and onwards don't have decision space for players, it's that the decisions are largely derived from special rules and stratagems, not the core rules. Again, it's a different approach with its own implications.

Do you think it could be saved?

40k isn't really trying to be a squad game is it? Otherwise it'd just be Apocalypse. In some ways like removing meaningful options from list building it is more like Apocalypse, but you still technically have the option for adding a heavy bolter, lascannon or multi-melta.

40K doesn't know what scale it's trying to be, and that's the deep-seated root cause for a significant number of problems with its design. But on the whole, this is a squad-based game depicting company-sized engagements, where the squad is the granular unit of decision-making.

A few examples:
-You declare attacks by squad, against target squads, not sequentially by model and not against specific models
-Casualties are taken on any member of the squad, not individuals, and regardless of range or LOS
-Squads are considered to have moved or remained stationary based on whether any model moved, not individuals
-Morale tests are taken per squad, not per model
-Wounds are aggregated across the squad, allocated to a single model at a time as an abstraction, rather than assigned to individual models across the squad
-An entire squad is in LOS if any member of it is
-Stratagems typically apply to squads, not models

There are cases where individual models are considered- determining which models can shoot, for example, or movement- but for the most part, this is a game where the squad is what matters.

Having melee suddenly launch into a minigame where you individually position troopers down to the millimeter is inconsistent with the other phases of gameplay, inconsistent with how melee attacks are still resolved at the squad level rather than between individuals, and downright obnoxious when you have dozens or hundreds of models on the field. Even if the micromanagement weren't largely a byproduct of rules exploits, it would be unsuitable for this type of game.

Save that stuff for Kill Team. Melee in 40K should be unit vs unit, not model vs model. The decisions you make should be at the squad level.

I have not played 40k since 8th Ed; a lot of my dissatisfaction with 10th Ed. is the size of the battlefield, can we just stick to 4'x6' as the norm! The shrinkage of the battlefield made some of the units change their base again, while the models themselves got slightly bigger. Then there is the rules spread out in 7+ places, and the updates of codex every 1.5-2 yrs.

Going back to fantasy with the Old World release.

 Overread wrote:

Again GW's rules approach is just baffling because it never really seems to have a focus beyond change for the sake of change. Even when there is a clear focus its undone by the next edition changing that focus; or by making the focus so extreme that it becomes a problem of its own

This is what was so good/interesting about 9th; it made a legitimate effort to address and fix the most obvious issues in 8th. Their entire marketing in the run up to release was basically focused on how it was an iterative edition, keeping what worked (more or less) and fixing what didn't.

Then with 10th they just decided to throw all of that out and start again. Redefining units and T values is fine and justifies an overhaul in that respect, but there was a bunch of other stuff changed and made actively worse for seemingly no reason when it could have just been left alone.

It wouldn't surprise me if we end up with a two and change system. One edition changes everything; the next iterates; the next changes it all.


In the end GW are their own worst enemy in this regard. It's still baffling to me that they will change everything but still won't do an alternate unit activation style of game

I guess this is increasingly me howling in the void - but I don't think 10th did change it all. Certainly the differences between 10th and 9th versus 8th and 7th, or 3rd and 2nd are much smaller.

They needed "a power reset" which probably meant going back to indexes. But losing some strength/AP/attacks etc doesn't I think make for a whole new game.

You then have a new rules language - but for the most part just serves to codify what existed before. Giving rules via USRs rather than all being bespoke isn't really a revolution. Clearly there were rules that have been changed - but that happened in 3rd to 7th. The introduction say of hull points didn't represent a reset of the game system.

This is perhaps a reason in turn why its unsatisfying. To my mind there isn't a fundamental break with 9th. I do not believe that GW sat down and went through every datasheet to turn them into 10th. Whole factions seem to have just been translated essentially by rote. By comparison in 8th they did have to write everything sort of scratch, because there wasn't a 1:1 translation given how fundamental the rules changes were. Which is probably why index 8th felt more balanced on release (aside from certain gremlins that were quickly discovered) and 10th was a joke.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

vict0988 wrote:
40k isn't really trying to be a squad game is it? Otherwise it'd just be Apocalypse. In some ways like removing meaningful options from list building it is more like Apocalypse, but you still technically have the option for adding a heavy bolter, lascannon or multi-melta.

Honestly, I feel like 2k point 40k is kind of the worst of both worlds. I think I'd prefer playing actual Apoc for 2k games for the better game flow/lack of a need to juggle minutia. I'd also prefer a version of the game built around something like 500-1000 points where the smaller number of units means we have space to add in things like crossfire mechanics, more nuanced movement, maybe alternating activations, etc.

Oooo. Imagine what they could do with a Kill Team-style ruleset based around units? All sorts of fun could be had.

Tyel wrote:
I guess this is increasingly me howling in the void - but I don't think 10th did change it all. Certainly the differences between 10th and 9th versus 8th and 7th, or 3rd and 2nd are much smaller.

The difference between 7 and 8 is greater than the difference between 9 and 10 for sure, but I don't know about 2nd-3rd; like they cleaned up hand to hand- no criticals, no fumbles... But aside from that, I don't remember a huge amount of change.

10th killed an entire phase of the game and took subfactions away from everyone except marines and monogod CSM. Whether you think that's a big deal or not, it is.

Converting points to PL was also huge, though as many are likely to point out, we had hints that was coming.

And removing battlefield role? I mean, I know 8th and 9th didn't have the same sort of FOC that we'd been working with since 2nd, but in the detachment system, battlefield role was something that still existed and had meaning.

And if those four HUGE cataclysmic changes, how about deck based missions as a default?

Like, I want to be respectful, but I feel like failing to recognize the impact of these changes undermines absolutely every other observation you might care to make about the game, because I feel like it's as obvious as the noses on our faces to the rest of us. Like, haven't Deny the Witch and Perils of the Warp existed since Rogue Trader? Equipment (at least some of it) has certainly been costed since RT. Battlefield roles have existed since RT.

Don't mean to sound condescending, but just can't get behind your POV.

PenitentJake wrote:
Don't mean to sound condescending, but just can't get behind your POV.

Well I'm not offended. I just don't agree.

I mean for me the idea that 2nd and 3rd are not so different is... odd.
To my mind movement was different. Combat was different. Armour was different. These are fairly fundamental things. You couldn't play 40k in the same way as you had done.

By contrast I feel like a lot of the changes in 10th you point out were heralded in 9th. Points to PL - well by the end we had that for various units/whole armies. Making it universal was different, but the door had been opened. The loss of battlefield role would have been significant - but again via say the Arks of Omen detachment it was more or less irrelevant anyway. Not completely to be fair - but again, it felt the herald of the change. Arguably unit role had grown to being vestigial from as early as 8th - FOC was very rarely a limited factor. Equally I don't feel subsuming the psychic phase into other phases is a dramatic shift. Its still the same units doing much the same thing just a bit differently. The specifics are different - but does it matter? Perhaps this is a bias of typically playing factions without psykers.

Deck based missions being default is I think the only significant change from your list - but even this existed. Its not a complete bolt from the blue.

For me 10th is a clear evolution of 9th - not a revolution. 8th and 3rd were much more fundamental changes.

Tyel wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
Don't mean to sound condescending, but just can't get behind your POV.

Well I'm not offended. I just don't agree.

I mean for me the idea that 2nd and 3rd are not so different is... odd.
To my mind movement was different. Combat was different. Armour was different. These are fairly fundamental things. You couldn't play 40k in the same way as you had done.

FOC was introduced. Psychic phase was cut. Huge differences in costs for units. Shooting was different. Cover was different. Ranges were different. Strategy cards were cut. Grenades were different. The turn phase was different. Hell, the dice were different.

PenitentJake wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I guess this is increasingly me howling in the void - but I don't think 10th did change it all. Certainly the differences between 10th and 9th versus 8th and 7th, or 3rd and 2nd are much smaller.

The difference between 7 and 8 is greater than the difference between 9 and 10 for sure, but I don't know about 2nd-3rd; like they cleaned up hand to hand- no criticals, no fumbles... But aside from that, I don't remember a huge amount of change[b].

Other than the system being completely re-built.... you can sort of run RT & 2e together. You can NOT run 2e & 3-7th together. Just like you can't run 3-7th & 8e+ together.

PenitentJake wrote:
Converting points to PL was also huge, though as many are likely to point out, we had hints that was coming.

Well, it was more of a system shock to a bunch of people than anything else....

PenitentJake wrote:
And removing battlefield role? I mean, I know 8th and 9th didn't have the same sort of FOC that we'd been working with since 2nd, but in the detachment system, battlefield role was something that still existed and had meaning.

We've still got battlefield roles. Characters/Leaders, Battleline, dedicated transport and everything else. As far as the everything else goes? Did the distinction really matter all that much throughout 9th?

PenitentJake wrote:
And if those four HUGE cataclysmic changes, how about deck based missions as a default?

Hardly cataclysmic.
And the only reason the deck based missions are default is laziness on the players part. The book gives you 1 very bare bones mission. It then goes on to tell you there's other ways to create missions. It actually doesn't say 1 word about the Mission Deck.
There's 1 Crusade book (& another coming?) - you could just pull a mission from that.
You and your opponent could create your own....
I'm also sure that you could pull out a 9e mission & it'd work just fine.
Most players don't bother with doing any of that though.

Fair enough- it might just be that the memory is hazier about the transition from 2nd to 3rd than 9th to 10th.

It's also a fair point the Arks of Omen transition did slow-walk us toward the changes. In my mind, Arks of Omen has more in common with 10th than 9th, and I guess I don't consider it 9th proper... But it technically is, so yeah... I stand corrected.

But I do stand by my thoughts on the psychic phase- 10th ed doesn't have psychic rules so much as it has weapons with the psychic keyword and precious little else. I feel like you're underestimating the impact of that- although it is fair to say that there's been quite a few variations on the psychic phase throughout the years, and I really shouldn't have expected any consistency.

A dakkanaut who used to be very active in both hobby and discussion forums recently said this about second and third editions:

‘Prior to 3rd Edition, there was no such thing as a "close combat army." There were some close combat troops, and some armies that were a little better at shorter ranges, but even Tyranids could shoot in 2nd Edition.
3rd Edition put an emphasis on quick game resolution, and did it by making close combat twice as dangerous, and making shooting half as effective.’

This hugely changed the character of the tabletop and background. Orks especially became non-threatening because of the correct characterization that in game they predictably have to rush across the table, and in background they’re the chump early game opponents as portrayed in the Dawn of War and Space Marine video games. All the other factions can also be taken less seriously because this default opponent the Orks are less threatening.


The change also reified an impotent filler role for the basic space marine squads. That mk7 silhouette of a basic marine turns on hordes of people to war games, but from 1998 a tactical or assault squad was perceived increasingly as dead weight.

Tyel wrote:
I don't feel subsuming the psychic phase into other phases is a dramatic shift.

I'd say the bigger shift was removing psychic powers as a thing from the game completely. Most psychic powers are now just weird guns (and the "psychic" tag is a detriment to the weapon, only ever making them worse), or abilities that nearly only work when the psyker has a squad with them, but otherwise simply cease to function.

Psychic Powers in 10th are "in name only" even moreso than the "points" system.

PenitentJake wrote:

And removing battlefield role? I mean, I know 8th and 9th didn't have the same sort of FOC that we'd been working with since 2nd, but in the detachment system, battlefield role was something that still existed and had meaning.

Just on this point, I think the bigger issue is that it wasn't replaced by anything.

Force organisation had been increasingly messy since 7th, due to a mix of expanding units (so that the old FOC often felt insufficient), coupled with trials at various different FOCs (which often went the other way, allowing too much spam and resulting in the Rule of 3).

However, whilst the Rule of 3 was initially introduced as a slapdash bandaid, it then just became a core rule and by 10th it's basically the only limiting factor when it comes to army building (with the only modification being that battleline units are 6-of).

The issues with this are made worse by the deeply-flawed dataslate system, which flip-flops back and forth between 'single dataslate with multiple options' and 'every set of options needs its own dataslate'. The latter (coupled with the fact that there are no longer any mandatory battleline/troop units or such) means we can have "armies" that consist of 20+ Marine Captains or half a dozen Necron C'tan.

40k seems to be falling into the same issues that AoS suffers from in that many armies bear no resemblance to armies. I'm sure many will consider this a feature rather than a bug, but for me it's hard to equate this state of affairs to the 40k game I got into and enjoyed.

the main problem with FOC was that some factions got too many different good units in the same slot and only bad ones in the other and the slots given were based on "fluff"

10th somehow created a similar problem with some factions having their good units being a single datasheet with multiple options so being limited to 3 total
while others have multiple datasheets without options so can take more

so the initial problem they wanted to remove with FOC changes, is still there just in a different form

The FOC was a great idea. However it was designed for a much smaller army diversity game. All GW needed to do was update the concept of the FOC

They kind of tried it one edition by letting you take multiple; but they also let you then take multiple from different sub-groups within the same army. So we got that messy period where GW tried to make painting colours colour as official binding parts of your models army subgroup because people did the logical thing.

They put the close combat units in the subgroup with the best close combat bonus; then the ranged ones in the ranged subgroup etc...

Which broke things somewhat and also led to messy tables because you'd have multiple "armies" running around all in the same paint scheme (or at official events in different ones).




It was an ok move to try and sort out the limits of the FOC; but handled badly.

The Force Organisation Chart just needed updating with the potential to change it for different armies or shift things around so that they balanced out better.



That said the Rule of Three isn't a bad choice these days. It's simple, easy to remember and it also works fairly well at making players make choices on what they do and don't take. Plus it makes collecting a much easier prospect and simpler too.

It's not a perfect rule and it has its weaknesses, but I think its a decent attempt at trying to curb spam lists that just repeat the same model over and over.

Plus most armies today have a wealth of choices to pick from.

It also gets around the main weakness of the FOC, which is that sometimes you want to take a little bit of everything from different models. The FOC could hit the problem that you'd not be able to take enough of a certain class of model to take a bit of everything. Eg Tyranids wound up with a lot of elite models, but with so few FOC slots for elite that they couldn't take enough of them so they had to specialise. Rule of 3 at least lets them take lots of different specialists at the same time

I tend to lean towards a general FOC in the core rulebook, but give factions their own custom FOC (instead of the general one) in their Codex - that way you can handle the Tyranid situation by giving them more Elite slots, possibly with a trade for less of slot X.

Don't tie it to a character, just say you can use the core FOC or the codex FOC, and away you go.

Also, before you start, go through and ensure you're happy with the definitions of each slot - Elite seemed to end up acquiring units that just didn't clearly fit elsewhere, without them truly being "Elite" units, for example.

Honestly it felt like they needed a few more slot types as well. Don't just lump everything into elite, create a specialist slot. Don't just lump everything into heavy; add artillery


Honestly I wouldn't even have a generic one in the book. I'd have army specific ones which might even be subfaction specific.


Of course such a system to be balanced would likely take a good while to settle down; which would require GW to keep the same system for several of their edition cycles. Which is the other issue. All this debate is almost a moot point because we all know GW will shake it all up in 3 years time. Even if you landed on a great system GW will likely just change it.

I could well see "rule of 3" vanishing for "Rule of cool" or "rule of 4" or just outright going entirely.
Though its gained some armour because its catchy and snappy as a concept so it might last around just because of that

 vipoid wrote:

40k seems to be falling into the same issues that AoS suffers from in that many armies bear no resemblance to armies. I'm sure many will consider this a feature rather than a bug, but for me it's hard to equate this state of affairs to the 40k game I got into and enjoyed.

I think this is actually a really great point. It's not the main reason for me 10th feels like the worst it's ever been but it's probably a big reason.

I would have also rather had the old percentage system back or fantasy core/special/rare.

 Dysartes wrote:
I tend to lean towards a general FOC in the core rulebook, but give factions their own custom FOC (instead of the general one) in their Codex - that way you can handle the Tyranid situation by giving them more Elite slots, possibly with a trade for less of slot X.

Don't tie it to a character, just say you can use the core FOC or the codex FOC, and away you go.

This could work.

I think the game could definitely do with more restrictions on army-building (the whole point is that you generally can't bring everything you'd like to so compromises have to be made), but I also think the old FOC was a bit outdated in terms of how slots had expanded.

In any case, one thing I'll say is that I think removing mandatory troops/battleline was a huge mistake. A fact not helped by GW crapping on a lot of troops (both individually and with abysmal core rules), so that there's often little incentive to take them when they're not mandated.

 Dysartes wrote:

Also, before you start, go through and ensure you're happy with the definitions of each slot - Elite seemed to end up acquiring units that just didn't clearly fit elsewhere, without them truly being "Elite" units, for example.

I think it would help, too, if we consider the overall purpose of having slots. For example, if Heavy Support is intended to create a degree of scarcity in an army's long-range, heavy weapons and/or in its tanks or monsters, then you have to be very careful about creating new slots for such things (or allowing those in other slots).

 Overread wrote:
I could well see "rule of 3" vanishing for "Rule of cool" or "rule of 4" or just outright going entirely.

Remind me - does 10th's "rule of 3" scale by game size, or is it a rule of 3 (or 6 if Battleline) regardless of game size?

If it doesn't scale, that needs to change - even if it is just 2/4 up to 1,000 points, 3/6 up to 2k, 4/8 up to 3k, etc.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Overread wrote:
I could well see "rule of 3" vanishing for "Rule of cool" or "rule of 4" or just outright going entirely.

Remind me - does 10th's "rule of 3" scale by game size, or is it a rule of 3 (or 6 if Battleline) regardless of game size?

If it doesn't scale, that needs to change - even if it is just 2/4 up to 1,000 points, 3/6 up to 2k, 4/8 up to 3k, etc.

It pretty much doesn't scale far as I'm aware. However the game rules are mostly only built for 2K games. I think they work fine up to 3K and beyond that I think you get into the realms of doing things yourself somewhat since that's much rarer. GW hasn't done a new Apoc in a while for the true massive games.

But yeah Rule of 3 is really simple and applies to whatever scale of game.

I think its mostly working because most armies in 40K have quite a wide unit roster to draw from even without bringing in allies. So if you've got 3 of something you often don't "need" to bring more of them. Your troops are covered by being battleline and the 6 limit; whilst your non-troops have enough diversity that if you've got 3 of X then chances are its good to bring some Y or Z instead of more X.



Ultimately Rule of 3 is about reducing the potential for unit-spam skewing the game too heavily one way or the other.

alextroy wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

vict0988 wrote:
40k isn't really trying to be a squad game is it? Otherwise it'd just be Apocalypse. In some ways like removing meaningful options from list building it is more like Apocalypse, but you still technically have the option for adding a heavy bolter, lascannon or multi-melta.

Honestly, I feel like 2k point 40k is kind of the worst of both worlds. I think I'd prefer playing actual Apoc for 2k games for the better game flow/lack of a need to juggle minutia. I'd also prefer a version of the game built around something like 500-1000 points where the smaller number of units means we have space to add in things like crossfire mechanics, more nuanced movement, maybe alternating activations, etc.

Oooo. Imagine what they could do with a Kill Team-style ruleset based around units? All sorts of fun could be had.

Right?! Readying units to shoot in place of overwatch. You could maybe bring back some sort of challenge mechanic if you wanted to. Crossfire/pinning rules that would be a pain if you had 40 units in play but are quire managable wen you only have 10. When you don't have an extra 1,000 or 1,500 points to juggle, you create more space to bring in slightly more complex but significantly more satisfying mechanics.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I don't feel subsuming the psychic phase into other phases is a dramatic shift.

I'd say the bigger shift was removing psychic powers as a thing from the game completely. Most psychic powers are now just weird guns (and the "psychic" tag is a detriment to the weapon, only ever making them worse), or abilities that nearly only work when the psyker has a squad with them, but otherwise simply cease to function.

Psychic Powers in 10th are "in name only" even moreso than the "points" system.

Maybe a hot take: I like how psychic powers work right now. In the novels, psychic powers aren't failing left and right and constantly getting shut down. They're reliable abilities. Sure, prolonged or especially flashy use of them can end up hurting the psyker, but Ahriman isn't going, "Okay, there's a 25% chance that I'll forget how to see the future, and then a 33% that this wyrd boy is going to stop me from doing so once I get started." And while putting everything in a "psychic phase" could be useful for not forgetting some of your powers, other powers felt really awkward not happening in the phase they were obviously meant to happen.

"This power makes your BA librarian grow wings and fly. So we resolve it *after* the Movement phase, and then it sticks around for an extra turn instead of just happening in this turn's movement phase."

And psychic powers that manifest as shooting attacks really should just be shooting attacks with a keyword. If I shoot fire from my fingertips, it should behave a lot like a flamer. No need to bring DtW or psychic tests into it. Let the psychic null units be immune to it. Let sisters get a FNP against it or whatever.

I feel like GW's designers got really excited about adding a psychic minigame to the system, and then players kind of came to expect that psychic powers had to be this whole elaborate subsystem and that they should be entitled to shut down a librarian's abilities even though they aren't entitled to shut down a captain's abilities in a similar way. It never felt fluffy to me, and I mostly like how powers are handled at the moment. Although losing your powers when your friends die is weird.

Regarding the FOC, my main problems with it basically boiled down to the org roles being really arbitrary and not actually meaning anything. So you had some factions being forced to pay a troop tax on underpowered units that didn't necessarily fit their army's fluff. And the main goal (as I understand it) of the FOC was to cut down on skew by keeping people from spamming too many broadly similar units (and too many of a given specific unit), but plenty of armies could still run skew anyway. You had guard fielding tanks in pretty much every slot except troops (who could take chimera transports). You had marines running 3 elite dreads, 3 heavy dreads, and some HQ dreads to boot.Tyranids could fit MCs into their HQ, troop, elite, and heavy slots, and I'm guessing there was at least one FA tyranid MC as well.

So basically, the FOC wasn't actually identifying the things that were problematic when spammed and putting limits on those elements; it was just punishing people for fielding armies with inefficient troops and making it harder to run thematic lists unless you were lucky enough to have a designer say, "Nevermind. Your particular subfaction can ignore the limit on its favorite unit. Spam away."

I might have less of an issue with psychic powers being guns or fixed buffs if they hadn't also removed all choice.

Worse still is that we've adopted the godawful mechanic from AoS, wherein a model's spell/psychic power known is determined by their mount.

Thus, an Eldar Farseer is only ever allowed to know Eldritch Storm and Fortune. Unless they plonk their arse on a Jetbike, in which case they immediately forget Fortune and learn Guide instead.

Oh but then Eldrad apparently forgot both of those and instead learned Mind War and Doom.

 vipoid wrote:
I might have less of an issue with psychic powers being guns or fixed buffs if they hadn't also removed all choice.

Worse still is that we've adopted the godawful mechanic from AoS, wherein a model's spell/psychic power known is determined by their mount.

Thus, an Eldar Farseer is only ever allowed to know Eldritch Storm and Fortune. Unless they plonk their arse on a Jetbike, in which case they immediately forget Fortune and learn Guide instead.

Oh but then Eldrad apparently forgot both of those and instead learned Mind War and Doom.

Yeah.

Psychic weapons as actual weapons? Good.
Appropriate buffs done in the appropriate phases? Good.
No choice of psychic powers at all? Big honkin' bad.

I’ve been going back to earlier editions to really feel the difference between them and 10th, and I feel the biggest standout for me is a current lack of opportunity cost. (And I’m aware much of this started in 8th)

I’ve noticed that under the current rules, units typically do everything you want them to, all the time and with little to no drawbacks. Previously heavy weapons could not move and shoot, now they can do so and charge. You can fall back with little consequence. Heck, even just being able to shoot all weapons on a model is fairly new. Feel free to have a model do a couple flips shooting targets at two ends of the board and still charge a third. There’s no action economy or any attempt to simulate any fog of war, which simplifies gameplay to just “move shoot charge” until one side wins. It also ramps up lethality and makes early turns very long.

This of course extends to listbuilding, which is where I think 10th took it too far for many people, and where now the even the pregame is robbed of opportunity cost. Fixed squads and load outs removed a lot of tinkering for one.
Others have already pointed out the change to the FOC, and where the current rules really don’t enforce any lore considerations but instead just say take whatever you want. For example it is possible (points permitting) to take well over 100 veteran marines even though the first company caps at 100, and I think that’s a shame because it disconnects the game from the lore.
Reimagining the FOC to be tailored per faction, but also enforcing that some models are simply rare or unique and can’t be spammed would be helpful. Using marine first companies as an example again: having more than 1 veteran squad of any type (be it termies, sternguard or vanguard) should be unusual. Likewise, land speeders are also relatively rare, even though they are not elite, and the same could be said for scouts.
Room for exceptional battles can still be there, e.g. defending a fortress monastery does imply all veterans to be present, but that would fall more under narrative rules as opposed to pick up games. Simply requiring permission to bend the rules could be sufficient.

Dandelion wrote:
Reimagining the FOC to be tailored per faction, but also enforcing that some models are simply rare or unique and can’t be spammed would be helpful. Using marine first companies as an example again: having more than 1 veteran squad of any type (be it termies, sternguard or vanguard) should be unusual. Likewise, land speeders are also relatively rare, even though they are not elite, and the same could be said for scouts

The (/a) FOC would restrict the number of veteran units available. Then have a Captain in Terminator Armour allow Terminators (assault and standard merged together into one entry) to be taken as Troops choices (with a minimum number which MUST be taken...) and one unit can be upgraded with Command Squad options.