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.
kodos wrote: one of the main complains with D4 start on was the full reset each season
and that it is a boring grind once you are done because there is nothing to do
Maybe from some people, but since this is quite common in the ARPG genre, I don't think it was the biggest issue.
The core problem of D4 is that it has no end game. As a consequence if you are someone who's going to put 100s of hours into the game, there very quickly isn't anything to do. Which kind of means it sucks. Especially if you are hoping to stream these hundreds of hours to make a living.
Diablo 3 had the same problem on release - and, while there is some strange internet amnesia - prompted a very similar reaction at the time. Which sort of disappeared with the Reaper of Souls expansion (and many subsequent seasons).
But the thing is - for a more casual player, who might get 40-50 hours into the game over a few months this doesn't matter. They can "enjoy" Diablo IV without playing it into the ground. Most of them did - but now they've moved on to other things to sink their 40-50 hours into (BG3, Starfield, etc)
Which is the dichotomy I've talked about with 40k players. Between people who are playing almost every week - and so tend to want churn to stop the game growing stale, and ASAP balance patches because one bad game is too many. And people who play maybe once every 6 months, who aren't keeping up and perhaps can't keep up.
Personally though, I'm not sure what in 40k has been the equivalent of Necromancers moving from low mobility healers to mobile DPS summoners to area control tanks. At least in recent history (so.. 6.5 years to the start of 8th). Stuff gets buffed and stuff gets nerfed. Well this happens in MMOs and RTS all the time.
The way a Russ tank company fights in 4th edition compared to the way one fights now is just not even the same playstyle. It's sort of absurd to claim they are even in the same ballpark, playstyle and theme wise.
I think assuming that a Russ tank company would be consistent "in universe" and therefore would function "on the tabletop" in a consistent way wasn't a faulty assumption back when I bought into them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/10/09 15:40:50
kodos wrote: one of the main complains with D4 start on was the full reset each season
and that it is a boring grind once you are done because there is nothing to do
Maybe from some people, but since this is quite common in the ARPG genre, I don't think it was the biggest issue.
The core problem of D4 is that it has no end game. As a consequence if you are someone who's going to put 100s of hours into the game, there very quickly isn't anything to do. Which kind of means it sucks. Especially if you are hoping to stream these hundreds of hours to make a living.
Diablo 3 had the same problem on release - and, while there is some strange internet amnesia - prompted a very similar reaction at the time. Which sort of disappeared with the Reaper of Souls expansion (and many subsequent seasons).
But the thing is - for a more casual player, who might get 40-50 hours into the game over a few months this doesn't matter. They can "enjoy" Diablo IV without playing it into the ground. Most of them did - but now they've moved on to other things to sink their 40-50 hours into (BG3, Starfield, etc)
Which is the dichotomy I've talked about with 40k players. Between people who are playing almost every week - and so tend to want churn to stop the game growing stale, and ASAP balance patches because one bad game is too many. And people who play maybe once every 6 months, who aren't keeping up and perhaps can't keep up.
Personally though, I'm not sure what in 40k has been the equivalent of Necromancers moving from low mobility healers to mobile DPS summoners to area control tanks. At least in recent history (so.. 6.5 years to the start of 8th). Stuff gets buffed and stuff gets nerfed. Well this happens in MMOs and RTS all the time.
I don’t think you need edition changes for these things necessarily, campaigns would improve the experience for both camps. Battle for Konor or even what they did at the start of 10th can provide new aspects or ways to play even for players that play every week. Throw in new scenarios, custom detachments, hell, you could even do a big Made to order of older minis and allow their legends rules for all ways to play for the duration of a season. If you're smart you don't put it behind a 50€ book paywall.
The way a Russ tank company fights in 4th edition compared to the way one fights now is just not even the same playstyle. It's sort of absurd to claim they are even in the same ballpark, playstyle and theme wise.
I think assuming that a Russ tank company would be consistent "in universe" and therefore would function "on the tabletop" in a consistent way wasn't a faulty assumption back when I bought into them.
I think you are going to have to put a bit more detail in for me to understand the issue.
But yes, I can accept that a Leman Russ plays a bit differently in 10th to how it did in 4th, just 15-20 years ago.
So I think he's saying that, lore-wise, in-universe, a tank company will behave in a certain expected way. But in-game, the rules changes over the years have massively impacted on that, and there is now a mental stumbling-block between how one expects a tank company to work based the lore/setting and how it works in-game based on the tabletop rules. And that shouldn't happen.
I can understand the whiplash between Russes being unable to move or fire any secondary weapons if they fire their main gun, through being incredibly vulnerable to close assault, to Catachans having the best tank crews, to every vehicle having sponsons and pintle mounts...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/10/12 07:07:10
Unit1126PLL wrote: Patches to fix core game bugs is what I meant (or constantly reworking core mechanical functions).
Expansions to add new content is different.
If every 3 months, the necromancer class in an MMO went from the low mobility ranged healer to the mobile dps summoner to the area control tank, I think that the players who chose Necromancer for the flavor and play style might die of whiplash.
And if after 3 years it decided to be an FPS instead and all magic classes found themselves using guns with "THIS IS MAGIC" spray painted on the side, I doubt it would go over well.
This is spot-on. Adding new content to keep a game interesting to dedicated players is fine. Radically changing how specific factions work, and then the core rules, is churn.
Look at Battletech, a game that still adds new content through new eras and sourcebooks for older ones, while maintaining backwards compatibility. Your venerable Mad Cat still works like a Mad Cat and still does everything you expect a Mad Cat to do, you just have new environments, new variants, new stories to engage in.
Tyel wrote: I think you are going to have to put a bit more detail in for me to understand the issue.
But yes, I can accept that a Leman Russ plays a bit differently in 10th to how it did in 4th, just 15-20 years ago.
An armored company went from a special list to part of the core rules to having to exploit variants to circumvent the ham-fisted Rule of 3. It involved special vehicles that are now banished to Legends or gone entirely.
It is centered on Leman Russes, which at different points in the game history could only fire their main gun and nothing else and had to be stationary (static gun-wall, sponsons suboptimal) or could move and fire defensive weapons (slow advance, sponsons are useful) or could stay stationary and fire the turret twice (static again, sponsons are useful) or could move at full speed while firing everything and with free sponsons (highly mobile, sponsons are mandatory). A Leman Russ has been at different times a bunker focused on its main gun, a mobile arsenal, or a decently speedy turret that had to hunker down to fire. Sometimes they've been glass cannons, sometimes they've been nigh-invulnerable but only from the front (requiring good positioning and mutual support), sometimes they've been durable all around.
Sometimes they've been able to take and hold objectives and are encouraged to get up to the front, sometimes they haven't and have to hang back while infantry do the job. Sometimes the iconic battle cannon is a big gun that mulches small units of Marines or big blobs of Orks equally well. Sometimes it's a dedicated anti-MEQ gun that needs other variants for anti-horde support. Sometimes it's a damp squib altogether and the variants are the true killers.
Then the Chimera that carries the supporting infantry has been at times a mobile pillbox that does nothing except get the dudes to the front line, a gun-truck that allows the occupants to shoot out and never have to disembark, or a light tank that gets the guys out ASAP and moves up with them while providing supporting fire.
Sometimes these vehicles are extremely vulnerable to assault and need infantry in close support to help screen. Sometimes these vehicles can fire all their weapons in close combat and mulch infantry that dare to attack them. Sometimes they can charge infantry first to disrupt them, but are vulnerable to getting bogged down. Sometimes every vehicle in the army carries pintle guns and hunter-killer missiles for supplemental fire, sometimes they're a waste of points.
You cannot extrapolate a coherent, consistent playstyle for an armored company across editions. The fundamentals of how the army works have changed so much, and the identities of the individual units that comprise it change with each new edition.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/10/12 13:47:01
Honestly, 10th has successfully dissolved what interest I had in 40k.
The rules are just so bland and dismal that I can't even muster the enthusiasm to make a single list. And I say this as someone who used to make far more lists than I'd ever have the time to actually use.
I wasn't thrilled with the AoS-ification of 40k in 8th-9th but 10th has managed to be the worst of both worlds.
Character rules are vastly worse than 8th/9th or AoS, as well as being worse than the IC rules of yesteryear.
Aura rules have been replaced by a handful of endlessly repeated buffs which will no doubt solve something somewhere.
Psychic powers now allow for no choice and would be indistinguishable from regular guns and buffs without the Psychic tag.
Warlord traits are gone entirely. Artefacts are also all but obliterated.
Equipment has likewise been cut not just to the bone but through the bone and into the marrow.
Stratagems still exist, though. Because I'm so glad we've kept probably the worst thing to be introduced in 8th (and that's saying a lot).
Clearly others here are enjoying the ""streamlined"" rules, but for me they hold all the appeal of eating a bucket of wallpaper paste.
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
Unit1126PLL wrote: It's sort of funny that the lore says things like "the Codex Astartes has been sacred and unalterable for ten thousand years"
And then real life is like "the Codex: Astartes is barely worth the paper it's printed on because things change so quickly."
Which ties back to the issue of how the way units work on the table doesn't match how they work in the lore, and so a lore-accurate force and a optimal, synergistic force tend to bear little resemblance to one another and the latter can change dramatically over time. I'm reminded of how Devastators are often depicted as carrying a mix of weapons so they can engage any threat, and how the rules have never actually supported that as a good strategy.
In a historical game you have an obvious baseline to compare against to ensure that your game functions as it should. Sci-fi/fantasy games have just their lore to maintain consistency with, and even that is easily ignored or retconned, so it's much easier for the vision of how units and armies function to drift over time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
vipoid wrote: Clearly others here are enjoying the ""streamlined"" rules, but for me they hold all the appeal of eating a bucket of wallpaper paste.
So tying back to the actual title of the thread: I'm not quite as harsh on 10th as you seem to be, but after playing it more I've come to feel like Grimdark Future does the 'streamlined 40K' with comparable depth but a fraction of the rules overhead. I can play pick-up games in an hour and with more interactivity between players, and I've been able to teach it to non-wargamers pretty easily.
10th Ed has felt like an uncomfortable middle ground between streamlining in the interest of playability, but maintaining the legacy structure that makes the game ponderous and slow to resolve, and still having enough bespoke rules and layers of rules that the cognitive load remains high for a beer-and-pretzels sort of game. The force-building system has killed a lot of my interest too, taking a lot of the flexibility out of listbuilding with clearly right and wrong choices.
I wonder what the team behind 10th would have done if they were given a complete blank slate to rebuild 40K from the ground up, AOS-style, rather than still being stuck with what is fundamentally an 80s wargame.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/10/13 14:39:40
Comperable depth? GW took away thunder hammers from my army. And army which has all damage put in to melee. They did it in an edition where dealing with hard targets is crucial.
Weapons rules for my dudes have psychic on them, when they are indentical weapons or rules "non psychic" factions have, which results in a ton of skew against certain armies. One could think that GW would balance that by giving GK some synergy with the psychic trait, which they splashed everywhere. But they didn't. To top it all of they gave us a ton of copy paste on top of "updated" profiles, which somehow made GK Grand Masters, Captins etc the least trained in using those all important melee weapons out of all marines. That happens to also be against the army lore, which puts big focus on weapon mastery.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
Karol wrote: Comperable depth? GW took away thunder hammers from my army. And army which has all damage put in to melee. They did it in an edition where dealing with hard targets is crucial.
Weapons rules for my dudes have psychic on them, when they are indentical weapons or rules "non psychic" factions have, which results in a ton of skew against certain armies. One could think that GW would balance that by giving GK some synergy with the psychic trait, which they splashed everywhere. But they didn't. To top it all of they gave us a ton of copy paste on top of "updated" profiles, which somehow made GK Grand Masters, Captins etc the least trained in using those all important melee weapons out of all marines. That happens to also be against the army lore, which puts big focus on weapon mastery.
Thunder hammers wouldnt even fix GK's damage problems anyway.
vipoid wrote: Honestly, 10th has successfully dissolved what interest I had in 40k.
The rules are just so bland and dismal that I can't even muster the enthusiasm to make a single list. And I say this as someone who used to make far more lists than I'd ever have the time to actually use.
Hi, Vipoid. From past discussions, I feel like you and I share a lot of the same tastes. So with that in mind, I just wanted to chime in on this and encourage you to play a few games if you haven't had a chance yet. 10th's list building phase is definitely less fun now than in any other edition I've played, but one of the redeeming features of this edition so far is that the game does play pretty smoothly once I'm actually at the table. So while I'm definitely bummed out every time I reach for a non-existent wargear option or character customization option or want to take a 5 man version of a 10 man squad... 10th edition does make up for it somewhat by making the experience on the table less of a headache than in the last two editions.
Not exactly high praise, but I wanted to chime in and make sure you weren't missing some of the up-sides due to get stuck in the list building phase.
(It also helps that I've kind of shelved my drukhari until the codex comes out. Their current rules kept bumming me out when I went to build lists.)
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
vipoid wrote: Honestly, 10th has successfully dissolved what interest I had in 40k.
The rules are just so bland and dismal that I can't even muster the enthusiasm to make a single list. And I say this as someone who used to make far more lists than I'd ever have the time to actually use.
Hi, Vipoid. From past discussions, I feel like you and I share a lot of the same tastes. So with that in mind, I just wanted to chime in on this and encourage you to play a few games if you haven't had a chance yet. 10th's list building phase is definitely less fun now than in any other edition I've played, but one of the redeeming features of this edition so far is that the game does play pretty smoothly once I'm actually at the table. So while I'm definitely bummed out every time I reach for a non-existent wargear option or character customization option or want to take a 5 man version of a 10 man squad... 10th edition does make up for it somewhat by making the experience on the table less of a headache than in the last two editions.
Not exactly high praise, but I wanted to chime in and make sure you weren't missing some of the up-sides due to get stuck in the list building phase.
(It also helps that I've kind of shelved my drukhari until the codex comes out. Their current rules kept bumming me out when I went to build lists.)
I appreciate the thought and advice.
I'll consider giving it a go with Necrons and seeing if they're any fun in this edition. Maybe I can replicate my terrible (but fun) list from way back in 5th edition.
My beloved DE are just dead, though. If the 10th edition rules are wallpaper paste, the DE book is the contents of a septic tank.
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
I'll consider giving it a go with Necrons and seeing if they're any fun in this edition. Maybe I can replicate my terrible (but fun) list from way back in 5th edition.
You should be able to - unless you relied upon Pariahs and can't deal with the fact they've been gone for some time.....
But in exchange? Necrons have gained plenty of interesting options. At least IMO. And at the worst they all look cool.
Reanination protocols also work quite nicely now.
I don't know what type of terrible but fun list your looking to replicate, but here's one I'm having great fun annoying people with:
Max Scarab squads, plenty of tomb spider & reanimator support, add other stuff to taste (I like destroyes/heavy destroys, lokust lords, & deathmarks).
Slam those scarabs into melee & blow 1 up for MWs.
Reanimate them &/or replace them via spyders and blow mire up next turn.
I've scarab bombed a great variety of targets since July. Is it a tourney caliber list? No. But it's stupid fun.
ccs wrote: I don't know what type of terrible but fun list your looking to replicate
If you're interested, it was a list made almost entirely of Immortal squads. If you had 2 Royal Courts, you could attach 2 Crypteks to each unit. So the idea was to have a bunch of semi-specialist units. You had the flamer guys for close-range anti-infantry, tesla ones for anti-tank, lance ones for long-range shots. Plus the various artefacts the crypteks had access to.
Not an amazing army but quite fun.
ccs wrote: I don't know what type of terrible but fun list your looking to replicate, but here's one I'm having great fun annoying people with:
Max Scarab squads, plenty of tomb spider & reanimator support, add other stuff to taste (I like destroyes/heavy destroys, lokust lords, & deathmarks)
Slam those scarabs into melee & blow 1 up for MWs.
Reanimate them &/or replace them via spyders and blow mire up next turn.
I've scarab bombed a great variety of targets since July. Is it a tourney caliber list? No. But it's stupid fun.
I have a friend who told me of the old-timey scarab bombs of many, many editions ago. Would be interesting to see what they're like now.
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
Unit1126PLL wrote: It's sort of funny that the lore says things like "the Codex Astartes has been sacred and unalterable for ten thousand years"
And then real life is like "the Codex: Astartes is barely worth the paper it's printed on because things change so quickly."
This just, flat-out, is not true. The Ultramarines have made changes to their organization after debate (i.e Tyrannic War Veterans), and they're the supposed exemplars of Codex compliance.
The thing about 40k is that no one person can grasp the fullness of it.
Game wise, 10th isn't bad But I constantly feel like an imbecile for only seeing the rules at surface level.
What I mean is, I can read and understand the rules. But when I watch tournament players ,they are doing a lot of "mastery" things that the rules don't tell you, especially in regards to movement. So it feels like I don't comprehend the game anymore, although I know the rules.
Part of that issue though I think is I'm used to playing with people who are so casual that they don't care to learn and improve their gameplay, they just want to push models and throw dice. So it feels like nothing is being learned, but on the flip side the other group I can play with is fairly competitive and I don't enjoy hyper competitive play either.
ccs wrote: I don't know what type of terrible but fun list your looking to replicate
If you're interested, it was a list made almost entirely of Immortal squads. If you had 2 Royal Courts, you could attach 2 Crypteks to each unit. So the idea was to have a bunch of semi-specialist units. You had the flamer guys for close-range anti-infantry, tesla ones for anti-tank, lance ones for long-range shots. Plus the various artefacts the crypteks had access to.
Not an amazing army but quite fun.
Probably something similar. Immortals are Battleline, so you can have plenty of them. Beyond that you'll want to read the index & note what all the different characters do & who/how many can attach to wich squads.
ccs wrote: I don't know what type of terrible but fun list your looking to replicate, but here's one I'm having great fun annoying people with:
Max Scarab squads, plenty of tomb spider & reanimator support, add other stuff to taste (I like destroyes/heavy destroys, lokust lords, & deathmarks)
Out of interest, how are you using Lokust Lords?
They all have Lords Blades or whatever the melee weapon is called atm & Res Orbs. I attach them to the Lokust/Heavy Lokust units. They're job is to provide a bit of melee support as needed to the squad, hand out a shooting buff, & most importantly buff the reanimation protocols.
I don't have alot of shooting in my Death By Scarabs list, so what I've got needs to keep firing as long as possible.
Slam those scarabs into melee & blow 1 up for MWs.
Reanimate them &/or replace them via spyders and blow mire up next turn.
I've scarab bombed a great variety of targets since July. Is it a tourney caliber list? No. But it's stupid fun.
I have a friend who told me of the old-timey scarab bombs of many, many editions ago. Would be interesting to see what they're like now.
Nowdays: at the start of the combat phase you pick 1 scarab base that's in engagement range & detonate it. Roll a d6, add +1 if the target is a vehicle.
1 = no effect
2-5 = d3 MW 6+ = d3+3 MW Now imagine that I've based the same enemy unit with 3 units of scarabs.... That's a fair+ # of MW done before we even start trading punches.
And then on my next turn reanimation & the spyders kick in & I can explode on the victim some more. My scarabs have downed everything from humble IG Infantry squads on up to Castelan Knights....
Unit1126PLL wrote: It's sort of funny that the lore says things like "the Codex Astartes has been sacred and unalterable for ten thousand years"
And then real life is like "the Codex: Astartes is barely worth the paper it's printed on because things change so quickly."
This just, flat-out, is not true. The Ultramarines have made changes to their organization after debate (i.e Tyrannic War Veterans), and they're the supposed exemplars of Codex compliance.
Tyrannic war veterans sure seems like nothing compared to the modifications made for Primaris. Holy f***.
Unit1126PLL wrote: It's sort of funny that the lore says things like "the Codex Astartes has been sacred and unalterable for ten thousand years"
And then real life is like "the Codex: Astartes is barely worth the paper it's printed on because things change so quickly."
This just, flat-out, is not true. The Ultramarines have made changes to their organization after debate (i.e Tyrannic War Veterans), and they're the supposed exemplars of Codex compliance.
Tyrannic war veterans sure seems like nothing compared to the modifications made for Primaris. Holy f***.
TBF, a lot of the Primaris structure is Guileman saying the codex isn't foolproof and only an idiot would take it word-for-word literally. IIRC also him saying that breaking down the legions was the wrong move.
^Which is really just the GW marketing team speaking to encourage the purchasing of more kits by hyper-specializing the SM squads. It's junk.
Firstborn/true/realmarines could build very effective armies with multiples of the Tactical and Devastator boxes, and just swapping the weapons around. Meta chasing was weapon swaps and reorganizing models. Meta chasing with Primaris requires more new kits.
I am still enjoying 10th Ed. I've had about 20 real games at the FLGS and two tournaments.
The mission deck is great. I like the character rules. Vehicles are tougher. Core rules are smooth once you figure out the Lethal Hits/Critical Hits/Sustained Hits/Devastating Wounds etc etc. bit.
On the other hand, they really needed to playtest a bit more before they released the Indexes (well - one of them in particular). Some of the subsequent fixes have led to some tertiary effects. It is better to fix an Index than change core rules.
My Dark Angels today on the table were about 70% First Born models, and they did just fine. My lists for tourneys do, though, have plenty of Tacticus models and I am not snobby towards the Primaris bit. I am sad that my Bike Squadrons and Landspeeders are in Legends.
All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand
Unit1126PLL wrote: It's sort of funny that the lore says things like "the Codex Astartes has been sacred and unalterable for ten thousand years"
And then real life is like "the Codex: Astartes is barely worth the paper it's printed on because things change so quickly."
This just, flat-out, is not true. The Ultramarines have made changes to their organization after debate (i.e Tyrannic War Veterans), and they're the supposed exemplars of Codex compliance.
I'm pretty sure if GW made a single notable change to the Astartes Codex (not to be confused with the Codex Astartes) in 10,000 years, my point would still hold.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/10/15 03:27:44
My beloved DE are just dead, though. If the 10th edition rules are wallpaper paste, the DE book is the contents of a septic tank.
I still get an urge to run an all-infantry (well, and scourges) DE list, just out of spite and bull-headedness. It would probably suck, but there's something about the concept that amuses me.
Wracks and warriors restricted to (but access to) one of each gun (no matter how bizarrely mismatched they are) usually cures that urge. I just don't want to do that to myself in every shooting phase.
I still feel like the army is being punished for being able to turn 2 table enemies in 6th edition (well before the range revamp). I felt really bad for digging out my hodge-podge collection and just stomping all over the (relatively new) tyranid player. I wasn't trying or building for it, but... everything died.
