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.

Ashitaka wrote:


Yes, we can still use them because we're playing for narrative - it just leaves a bad taste.

Absolutely- it would for me too. I didn't mean to imply that it didn't suck- it certainly does.

Ashitaka wrote:

I'll look into agendas. He had some units on the table but most were completely out of sight (they had indirect) and the one I could see - he played a strat so that I couldn't shoot them from more than 12" away. (He later did this on 2 units, as they had the special rule that you could target them with a 0cp strat that had already been used)

I'm with my books now, and I just looked into it for you. I forgot that GW eliminated actions this edition- there aren't many Agendas that would have actually worked for you. Most that sort of fit your situation involve finishing the game with units in the enemy deployment zone... and that doesn't really work for you, because when his reinforcements show up, they had the firepower to take care of your units in his DZ.

It might have divided his forces though- he may have chosen to menace the units in his DZ rather than focusing to shift your controlling units off their objectives. In a best case scenario, he divides have deepstrikers in such a way that he deprives you of neither the VP he needs to win, nor the XP that help you get leverage in the ongoing campaign.

If he focuses on depriving VP, you max XP; if he focuses on depriving XP, you were far enough ahead to win. If he divides? You've got a shot at having your cake and eating it too. Still, it was easier in 9th when actions existed- I may have misspoken when I suggested playing the Agendas, because it's far harder to do now than it was.

OoM is a good but pretty unimaginative rule (and also quite limited vs. alot of armies) - but seeing as SM are currently sitting firmly at lower mid-tier and aren't exactly winning tournaments left and right, I find the discussion about nerfing/removing it to be both random and slightly funny.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Karol wrote:
But then the question rises, why spend a 1000$ on models, rules, painting etc, when you could spend it on other stuff which isn't unfun.

because the models ARE part of the fun....

To use your argument . For you. w40k is a game, the enjoyment from playing a game shouldn't come from the fact that you have to do outside activities and only do it with fun people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs 810750 11572062 wrote:

1) The fun comes in seeing how well you can do with the bad army.
2) just because the tourney stats say <army> has x win % doesn't mean that's how it's going to play in our game. I guarantee you that the kid playing the GSC in our shops league is NOT enjoying those tourney lv win rates.
3) Sometimes you build something purely for theme%narrative. Ex: I built a Tryanid list that's virtually impossible to actually win with. Fortunately, narrative wise, all I'm really trying to do is infect you bia the Parasite or kill you with spore mines.

We don't have any kids playing the game at the store. The games costs too much to be played by kids. A kid would also wouldn't do that well with GSC. What I do get to see, is what happens when some people start w40k, and two of the 5 pick knights and custodes. Everyone else in the circle is having zero fun. The dudes are both sitting at 100% win rates at the store noob summer event, and both are playing with the christmas boxes. As point one goes, I find nothing fun in playing an army that costs like custodes, but has lower stats, can't melee, can't shot and the game play is base around hidding and praying the opponent is bad and doesn't know your army rules/stratagems. Which works 1-2 times per player. Part 3 is only a thing for people who have big collections and have a chance to play vs others who have big collections too, and who are willing to play unoptimised list. If Jimmy decides he wants to make a"phobos" army and his friend has 2000pts of custodes, another has 2000pts of knight and another has 2000pts of regular sm builds, he will invest a lot of army in to an army which will lose all the time. And losing all the time is not fun.

Karol wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Karol wrote:
But then the question rises, why spend a 1000$ on models, rules, painting etc, when you could spend it on other stuff which isn't unfun.

because the models ARE part of the fun....

To use your argument . For you. w40k is a game, the enjoyment from playing a game shouldn't come from the fact that you have to do outside activities and only do it with fun people.

TBF wh40k is a multifascited hobby. There are better games, theres better lore, theres better crafts. But wh40k has all of it in one

The 10th edition was completely disliked.
Too raw and unfinished. too broken. no sinergy.
I dropped it and moved on to playing necromunda, mordheim, and infinity.

 MinscS2 wrote:
OoM is a good but pretty unimaginative rule (and also quite limited vs. alot of armies) - but seeing as SM are currently sitting firmly at lower mid-tier and aren't exactly winning tournaments left and right, I find the discussion about nerfing/removing it to be both random and slightly funny.

only real issue I have with OoM, having been on the sharp end of it is how it does not scale with game size and like the HH reactions is nasty in smaller sized games

Karol wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Karol wrote:
But then the question rises, why spend a 1000$ on models, rules, painting etc, when you could spend it on other stuff which isn't unfun.

because the models ARE part of the fun....

To use your argument . For you. w40k is a game, the enjoyment from playing a game shouldn't come from the fact that you have to do outside activities and only do it with fun people.

yeah thats what i meant. People might very well buy into 40k even if the game itself isnt fun, because for them assembling/painting/playing fun people IS their fun

I play with a small circle of friends, mostly at my place in my game room, and we play casually competitive. That means, yes, we're experienced players, but we like to keep the games relatively friendly for the most part.
So far, it has been enjoyable, we've had some amazing cinematic moments (a cultist using a flamer to take the last 2 wounds off the sanguinor, he's has a name now and is getting a custom figure).
However, we have also ran in to "thats way too good for a fun game" moments (a knight tyrant, in cover, with panoply enhancement is super gross).
What's working for me with 10th edition is keeping it friendly. I like to have fun with my friends, and I value that over the importance of winning a game of toy soldiers. YMMV

I'm not sure. I've yet to even get a formal game going. I've played Combat Patrol with my Grey Knights, but I've been giving my Word Bearers more and more attention.

It feels so...Well, incomplete. I know it's everything on an index. But I'm not entirely sure how I feel about all of it. Maybe I'm just a boomer who can't move on from 5th-8th ed.

 13thWarrior wrote:
I'm not sure. I've yet to even get a formal game going. I've played Combat Patrol with my Grey Knights, but I've been giving my Word Bearers more and more attention.

It feels so...Well, incomplete. I know it's everything on an index. But I'm not entirely sure how I feel about all of it. Maybe I'm just a boomer who can't move on from 5th-8th ed.

Could you expand on what about you feel is incomplete other than the obvious lack of more than one Detachment option for indexes?

In case of GK it is stuff like. Having 5 melee weapons consolidated in to one. We don't get power fists "str 8" weapons, there was no update to make the army be able to deal with targets of any kind, swarms, marines, elite and especialy anything of a monster or tank class, nevermind a knight level model. There are no psychic powers and the rules that are on the units are the same kind of rules other armies have on their units, on top of that a lot of them feel as if someone wrote them in a rush not checking or knowing the units. The person who wrote the GK rules clearly didn't know that a GK Captin is like a marine Lt, for some reason GK GM are hitting with heavy weapons on a +4, which means that when regular marine characters hit on a +2(or +3 with fists or hammers), the GK GM is the least martial of all marine leaders. There are special rules that are copies of same rules other similar armies have (stratagem for free), yet somehow the GK are once per game, and not once per turn. Which means that if a GK character uses it, it is less special then those of other factions. GK stuff has psychic slapped on everything, but there are no benefits from it. Psychic abilities aren't cheaper, better or even different then regular indentical or similar rules, with one "but". And it is the fact that they aren't beneficial for GK, but every rule that targets psychic stuff with double the power. For nothing.
On top of that GK players get to see 1ksons still have a psychic phase, so it may sting a little too.
or TLTR the GK rule set feels as if someone told Bob the internet AoS player, to write GK rules fast, because everyone forgot that they have to be done.

So about 20 more games & a bit over two months since my last post in this thread.....

Overall? So far so good.
This despite several new annoyances caused by the most recent balance sheet.
●The change made to Dev Wounds feels like a case of bait & switch. Sure, I see the problem they were trying to fix, but still.
●Titanic units can no longer fire overwatch - for reasons.....

! I still have not seen any of the game breaking, world shattering, apocalyptic effects of the new pts scheme that so many were ranting about in the weeks right after launch.
Of course I allready knew I wouldn't....
All that happened locally (the most important area playwise as far as I'm concerned)? There was some minor grumbling. And then everyone, including the grumblers, just got on with 10e list building & playing games.

I've since pulled two more of my old forces out if storage & put them back into the rotation.
●August was my Tau.
1st time they've seen use since 5e.
I added 3 new models to the collection - 1 modern Broadside, 1 Enforcer Commander, & 1 Sunshark Bomber.
The Tau have preformed well in each game they've been in.
●Sept saw my Eldar returned to use after a similar length hiatus.
Like the Tau, I've added new models to this force for the 1st time in decades - an Autarch & 3 units of Skyshrouds.
The Skyshrouds will hit the table sometime here in Oct.

In the coming weeks I'll evaluate how the new SM codex effects my SM forces.....

Karol wrote:
In case of GK it is stuff like. Having 5 melee weapons consolidated in to one. We don't get power fists "str 8" weapons, there was no update to make the army be able to deal with targets of any kind, swarms, marines, elite and especialy anything of a monster or tank class, nevermind a knight level model.

Bruh, you can complain about weapon consolidation but you CANNOT seriously say that you are unable to deal with Swarms/Marines/Elite.

Stormbolters can deal with swarms.
3/4 melee attacks at 6 -2 2 are made to kill marines and do decent against termis.

Not being able to kill monsters/vehicles is a valid complain but please don'T make yourself look like a fool and say that GK can't kill anything.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:

! I still have not seen any of the game breaking, world shattering, apocalyptic effects of the new pts scheme that so many were ranting about in the weeks right after launch.
Of course I allready knew I wouldn't....

well no gak. It's not something that makes the game unplayable . It's still poor game design

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


yeah thats what i meant. People might very well buy into 40k even if the game itself isnt fun, because for them assembling/painting/playing fun people IS their fun

But it isn't w40k. Same way buying a t-shirt isn't playing football. The question in the thread is how is 10th going for you and not "how is painting going for you". There are limits to how far one can stretch what w40k in 10th is. What is next, being around people making 10th good? With each year I am in the hobby I learn more things that are suppose to make w40k fun. High income to afford multiple armies, friends, having your own flat or house, a car to drive around with 5+ armies so you can build different armies on the spot etc Non of those things have directly anything to do with playing the game. I mean I fully expect one day to hear that in order to have fun in w40k, you have to be "rich, happy and healthy". Although this probably won't happen as it is part of a slavic proverb.

Karol wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


yeah thats what i meant. People might very well buy into 40k even if the game itself isnt fun, because for them assembling/painting/playing fun people IS their fun

But it isn't w40k. Same way buying a t-shirt isn't playing football. The question in the thread is how is 10th going for you and not "how is painting going for you". There are limits to how far one can stretch what w40k in 10th is. What is next, being around people making 10th good? With each year I am in the hobby I learn more things that are suppose to make w40k fun. High income to afford multiple armies, friends, having your own flat or house, a car to drive around with 5+ armies so you can build different armies on the spot etc Non of those things have directly anything to do with playing the game. I mean I fully expect one day to hear that in order to have fun in w40k, you have to be "rich, happy and healthy". Although this probably won't happen as it is part of a slavic proverb.

oh please just shut it.

Painting IS part of the hobby, and i was giving it as an answer to YOU asking "why would someone spend 1000's of dollars to buy an army thats not fun to play.

You don't NEED to have multiple armies, a house, a car and all these things you listed to have fun either. You just need to be part of a less sociopathic community. And don't bs me with the "the only people that play are in the store" BS, thats just false, theres always gonna be people that play garagehammer (not in a litterall garage, juste making it clear so you can't use that to cry about how not everyone can have a garage)

Karol wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


yeah thats what i meant. People might very well buy into 40k even if the game itself isnt fun, because for them assembling/painting/playing fun people IS their fun

But it isn't w40k. Same way buying a t-shirt isn't playing football. The question in the thread is how is 10th going for you and not "how is painting going for you". There are limits to how far one can stretch what w40k in 10th is. What is next, being around people making 10th good? With each year I am in the hobby I learn more things that are suppose to make w40k fun. High income to afford multiple armies, friends, having your own flat or house, a car to drive around with 5+ armies so you can build different armies on the spot etc Non of those things have directly anything to do with playing the game. I mean I fully expect one day to hear that in order to have fun in w40k, you have to be "rich, happy and healthy". Although this probably won't happen as it is part of a slavic proverb.

As someone who doesn't really care for painting...

Painting is 100% part of the hobby. Some people, like me, focus on the gaming side. Others focus on the painting side. Others focus on the books and lore and such. None of that is a wrong way to do 40k-it's whatever you have fun with.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Spoiler:

Karol wrote:
In case of GK it is stuff like. Having 5 melee weapons consolidated in to one. We don't get power fists "str 8" weapons, there was no update to make the army be able to deal with targets of any kind, swarms, marines, elite and especialy anything of a monster or tank class, nevermind a knight level model.

Bruh, you can complain about weapon consolidation but you CANNOT seriously say that you are unable to deal with Swarms/Marines/Elite.

Stormbolters can deal with swarms.
3/4 melee attacks at 6 -2 2 are made to kill marines and do decent against termis.

Not being able to kill monsters/vehicles is a valid complain but please don'T make yourself look like a fool and say that GK can't kill anything.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:

! I still have not seen any of the game breaking, world shattering, apocalyptic effects of the new pts scheme that so many were ranting about in the weeks right after launch.
Of course I allready knew I wouldn't....

well no gak. It's not something that makes the game unplayable . It's still poor game design

Poor design or not, it really hasn't affected the fun of any of our games. So....

ccs wrote:




Poor design or not, it really hasn't affected the fun of any of our games. So....

which is not something that people said would happen either. An unbalanced game can be fun too.

But play a mirror match where one person plays their squads naked and the other plays them fully kitted out and you might start seeing problems

Karol wrote:
With each year I am in the hobby I learn more things that are suppose to make w40k fun. High income to afford multiple armies, friends, having your own flat or house, a car to drive around with 5+ armies so you can build different armies on the spot etc Non of those things have directly anything to do with playing the game.

sigh....
House/housing? You'll need that anyways. Maybe you'll be able to play games there. Maybe not.
Transportation of some kind? Odds are you'll need that anyways. Might as well use it to also get to the local game shop.
High Income? You'll want your income to be as high as possible anyways. Comes in real handy for housing/transport/food/bills/supporting your family/etc. And yes, affording your hobbies.
Multiple armies - you don't need multiple armies. Just enough pts of one you really like to give you some options. And a case big enough to hold it.

But friends....
Having friends involved in the same hobbies as you absolutely has a direct impact on the fun.

I was very into 40k at the end of 9th. I was finally getting into the 9th chaos daemon codex with some nurgle daemons and having a blast.

10th edition rules seem ok, but the changes to unit sizes, the power level disguised as points army building, and the general changes to building your army killed all enthusiasm I had for 40k.

I haven't played a game of 10th, and haven't spent any money on 40k since it hit.

I really have no interest in playing until points/upgrades, army building, etc are fixed.

I have some friends who are playing. A few new guys in the group, but a few of the long term players are not playing as much or at all, like me.

I will probably give 10th a go at some point, but I really, really have no enthusiasm for it at this point. I have tried multiple times to get pumped building a list that sounds fun...but then I see all the stupid unit size restrictions and get annoyed and go do something else.

10th has killed 40k for me, at least temporarily. I have no idea why they tried fixing something that didn't need fixing.

I'm really looking forward to trying out the new Marien Codex.

I've got a very silly "Oops, all Dreadnoughts!" list that I want to try out, and now there's the vehicle-detachment that might make it even better. Or I could try the one that gives all weapons Assault, which I think would work equally as well for a Dread-heavy army by keeping them mobile without sacrificing firepower.

ccs wrote:

Karol wrote:
With each year I am in the hobby I learn more things that are suppose to make w40k fun. High income to afford multiple armies, friends, having your own flat or house, a car to drive around with 5+ armies so you can build different armies on the spot etc Non of those things have directly anything to do with playing the game.

sigh....
House/housing? You'll need that anyways. Maybe you'll be able to play games there. Maybe not.
Transportation of some kind? Odds are you'll need that anyways. Might as well use it to also get to the local game shop.
High Income? You'll want your income to be as high as possible anyways. Comes in real handy for housing/transport/food/bills/supporting your family/etc. And yes, affording your hobbies.
Multiple armies - you don't need multiple armies. Just enough pts of one you really like to give you some options. And a case big enough to hold it.

But friends....
Having friends involved in the same hobbies as you absolutely has a direct impact on the fun.

I hate to be the one to say it, but at the end of the day there is a certain level of cost associated with this hobby - same as any other. And while there are ways you can reduce this with second-hand models from ebay, playing smaller games like Kill Team etc; if you can't afford it then you are going to struggle to participate.

I'd love to be able to take a sports car on track days - but I couldn't afford the costs involved with tracking my sports car, and ultimately had to sell it when we had our second child anyway.

I'm sure yachting is bloody good fun - but there's no way I can afford a yacht. Or a pony to play polo.

I used to work on a golf course, and I'd see people who had individual golf clubs that cost about the same as a warhammer army...

Closer to the real world, there are new PC games and Xbox Series X games I'd love to play - but at the moment I can't afford to buy a gaming PC or a new XBox.

I don't think anyone wants to be snobby, or exclude people, or gate-keep the hobby - but yeah, it costs, and if you can't afford it we can't really help with that.

Crispy78 wrote:

ccs wrote:

Karol wrote:
With each year I am in the hobby I learn more things that are suppose to make w40k fun. High income to afford multiple armies, friends, having your own flat or house, a car to drive around with 5+ armies so you can build different armies on the spot etc Non of those things have directly anything to do with playing the game.

sigh....
House/housing? You'll need that anyways. Maybe you'll be able to play games there. Maybe not.
Transportation of some kind? Odds are you'll need that anyways. Might as well use it to also get to the local game shop.
High Income? You'll want your income to be as high as possible anyways. Comes in real handy for housing/transport/food/bills/supporting your family/etc. And yes, affording your hobbies.
Multiple armies - you don't need multiple armies. Just enough pts of one you really like to give you some options. And a case big enough to hold it.

But friends....
Having friends involved in the same hobbies as you absolutely has a direct impact on the fun.

I hate to be the one to say it, but at the end of the day there is a certain level of cost associated with this hobby - same as any other. And while there are ways you can reduce this with second-hand models from ebay, playing smaller games like Kill Team etc; if you can't afford it then you are going to struggle to participate.

I'd love to be able to take a sports car on track days - but I couldn't afford the costs involved with tracking my sports car, and ultimately had to sell it when we had our second child anyway.

I'm sure yachting is bloody good fun - but there's no way I can afford a yacht. Or a pony to play polo.

I used to work on a golf course, and I'd see people who had individual golf clubs that cost about the same as a warhammer army...

Closer to the real world, there are new PC games and Xbox Series X games I'd love to play - but at the moment I can't afford to buy a gaming PC or a new XBox.

I don't think anyone wants to be snobby, or exclude people, or gate-keep the hobby - but yeah, it costs, and if you can't afford it we can't really help with that.

Why are you replying to me with this?

OK yeah, that was possibly undiplomatic! I was thinking in terms of adding to what you were saying to Karol.

Possibly back tot he topic. The confused launch, suspicion about stat lines and similar has kept me out of 10th. Liked 8th after ages, skipped 9th due to the chaos at the time and then the masses of changes, but now I have a legacy of suspicion about all that errata and changes combined with suspicion about stat lines and other quibbles. Hard to bother again and not play Necro, Blood Bowl or something else.

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Possibly back tot he topic. The confused launch, suspicion about stat lines and similar has kept me out of 10th. Liked 8th after ages, skipped 9th due to the chaos at the time and then the masses of changes, but now I have a legacy of suspicion about all that errata and changes combined with suspicion about stat lines and other quibbles. Hard to bother again and not play Necro, Blood Bowl or something else.

Would you say that you'd prefer a more static game with fewer changes then? That the balance passes, mission packs and rules updates in 9th/10th are the big detractors?

Having played 10th again last weekend some thoughts from me:
+ the overall base rules are fine, game is running smooth
+ I llike the changed overwatch stratagem and everything that's a kind of reaction
+ fewer CP make you really think about how to use them
+ USRs are good to see again
+ I actually like the individual special rules of the units. The game is pretty flavourful despite being in the indexstage, unlike 8th were playing with an index felt like playing an alpha-version (which it was, obviousely)
- why is there no reference page in the rules document? The structure of the rules is all over the place and USRs are spread everywhere. You'd think they'd get that right by now.
- Power level points... well, it makes you take every possible upgrade, listbuilding is more like solving a puzzle, though
- there should be some "difficult terrain" to make armies slower, I can still easily get into CC by turn two with footslogging armies, if I had taken aggressive positioning even turn 1 would have been easy
- maybe I'm the only one, but I think how 8th and 9th handled psychic stuff was actually the best version of 40K
- game is still too lethal, I killed about 40 Space Marines in a single turn and game was over at the end of turn 2 - and I wasn't playing a competitive list
- long term the continued killing of options like we see in Space Marines could be the main reason to push me to OPR (again), really, the basic approach to 10th isn't bad, but they're shooting themselves in the foot with their stupid no models, no rules policy, kits dictate rules, no legends in their army builder
- GW is dumb as sh1t for putting their armybuilder behind a paywall after one month. Hello again, Battlescribe!

These are more cons than pros, but still, I think 10th base rules are the best I've played for 40K so far (been here since end of 5th), but unfortunately there are many things outside of the base rules that seem like an attempt to kick out players that played prior editions and collected GW minis for more than 3 years.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Having played 10th again last weekend some thoughts from me:
+ the overall base rules are fine, game is running smooth
+ I llike the changed overwatch stratagem and everything that's a kind of reaction
+ fewer CP make you really think about how to use them
+ USRs are good to see again
+ I actually like the individual special rules of the units. The game is pretty flavourful despite being in the indexstage, unlike 8th were playing with an index felt like playing an alpha-version (which it was, obviousely)
- why is there no reference page in the rules document? The structure of the rules is all over the place and USRs are spread everywhere. You'd think they'd get that right by now.
- Power level points... well, it makes you take every possible upgrade, listbuilding is more like solving a puzzle, though
...
- GW is dumb as sh1t for putting their armybuilder behind a paywall after one month. Hello again, Battlescribe!

Fellow 5th edition baby here. Agreed on all the above points.

- there should be some "difficult terrain" to make armies slower, I can still easily get into CC by turn two with footslogging armies, if I had taken aggressive positioning even turn 1 would have been easy

Is this a bad thing though? One of the common complaints about 5th-7th was that footslogging armies basically had to spend half the game getting shot off the table before they were allowed to do anything. Now, my melee units only have to spend one turn getting into position (less if my opponent is aggressive). I've been kiting hard with my eldar lately, backing away from short-ranged enemies while I soften them up. So staying away from most melee armies is still a valid tactic; it just costs you positioning/VP to do so. That's a decent place to be, I think. Then again, most of my melee units feel a little limp this edition, so maybe I'd rather trade difficulty of delivery for effectiveness upon delivery.

- maybe I'm the only one, but I think how 8th and 9th handled psychic stuff was actually the best version of 40K

Valid opinion is valid. Personally, 10th's approach is basically what I've been wanting for a while now. What did you prefer about 9th's approach?

- game is still too lethal, I killed about 40 Space Marines in a single turn and game was over at the end of turn 2 - and I wasn't playing a competitive list

Interesting. Can you share a little about your list? In my latest 2k game running lots of ranged anti-tank units, I only ended up killing like, 25ish marines by the end of the game. Granted, I was using a lot of single-shot guns and had some dreadnaughts/tanks to deal with.

...
- long term the continued killing of options like we see in Space Marines could be the main reason to push me to OPR (again), really, the basic approach to 10th isn't bad, but they're shooting themselves in the foot with their stupid no models, no rules policy, kits dictate rules, no legends in their army builder
...
These are more cons than pros, but still, I think 10th base rules are the best I've played for 40K so far (been here since end of 5th), but unfortunately there are many things outside of the base rules that seem like an attempt to kick out players that played prior editions and collected GW minis for more than 3 years.

Largely agree with you here. No-models-no-rules is a bad policy that seems to be leading to some sub-optimal rules choices. My impression is that this is a lingering fear response to the lawsuit back in the day. Which is a shame, because I really doubt nmnr has resulted in a bunch of extra sales for GW, and it definitely hasn't stopped third parties from making totally-not-made-with-40k-in-mind products. So the end result is that it feels like GW is removing/not adding a bunch of options to the game that would facilitate the customization I used to love for fear of missing out on hypothetical sales of models they don't want to make.

It doesn't feel like GW is actively trying to kick anyone out, but it does feel like they're neglecting to think about the impact of certain decisions on their players.

But yeah, I'm enjoying 10th overall. For all my little frustrations during the list-building and conversion part of the hobby, the game currently plays very smoothly on the table. All the little special rules GW has given things go a long way towards making more units feel valid rather than just being suboptimal versions of other units. The detachment rules in the tyranid 'dex are fun and fluffy and change the way various units play. I'm hoping that trend continues in future books.

Dudeface wrote:

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Possibly back tot he topic. The confused launch, suspicion about stat lines and similar has kept me out of 10th. Liked 8th after ages, skipped 9th due to the chaos at the time and then the masses of changes, but now I have a legacy of suspicion about all that errata and changes combined with suspicion about stat lines and other quibbles. Hard to bother again and not play Necro, Blood Bowl or something else.

Would you say that you'd prefer a more static game with fewer changes then? That the balance passes, mission packs and rules updates in 9th/10th are the big detractors?

Howabout more sensible updates, rather than knee-jerk whiplash inducing updates. Smart decisions rather than dumb ones. That'd be nice.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Possibly back tot he topic. The confused launch, suspicion about stat lines and similar has kept me out of 10th. Liked 8th after ages, skipped 9th due to the chaos at the time and then the masses of changes, but now I have a legacy of suspicion about all that errata and changes combined with suspicion about stat lines and other quibbles. Hard to bother again and not play Necro, Blood Bowl or something else.

Would you say that you'd prefer a more static game with fewer changes then? That the balance passes, mission packs and rules updates in 9th/10th are the big detractors?

Howabout more sensible updates, rather than knee-jerk whiplash inducing updates. Smart decisions rather than dumb ones. That'd be nice.

Care to elaborate with an example or two? The only one I can think of for 10th is the towering issue resulting in some odd points changes.

GW over the last 6 years have simultaneously been to fast and too slow, gone too far and not far enough, all in the same updates. Always interesting to see which individual chunks bother people most.