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.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Oh stop.


Just. Stop.

At least get some games under your belt before you declare the sky is falling.

when was the last time were "wait and see" resulted in a positive development with GW rules?

The only time I played 40k and considered it balanced was in 6th edition under Swedish Comp rules. It saved both competitive and (even more so) casual/campaign games we played.

So my advice is: don't wait to get balance from GW but when some part of the community comes up with a good way to balance the game don't whine that it hits your overpowered army or that it is not official or that this balance is still not 100% perfect - embrace it and promote it so that it spreads and becomes norm.

Balanced norm is better than official norm in such a game.

 kodos wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Oh stop.


Just. Stop.

At least get some games under your belt before you declare the sky is falling.

when was the last time were "wait and see" resulted in a positive development with GW rules?

Right now, we have no idea about so much, all this doomsaying is silly.

We don’t know point costs.
We don’t know stratagems.
We don’t know detachment rules.
We don’t know most mission parameters.
We don’t know faction rules.

We’ve seen the merest sliver of info so far. Yet here we are, with people determined to paint this as The Worst Thing Ever, with basically sod all evidence to support it.

GW's track record is "think the worst so the inevitable mediocrity will look like a win". So yeah, wait and see has never been a valid thing. Not should it be. You don't need evidence when 30 years of history indicate it'll be middling at best or spiral to another dumpster fire at worst.

By whatever GW has done, a "this time it might be, just wait for it" is not something I see here after the first gameplay summeries

It shouldn't be something you ever see. Remember, GW is successful DESPITE everything they do, not because of it.

There is a time for “wait and see” and there is a point where it’s folly.

Right now we just have a few scraps of hard info, and some info from stripped down demo games. We absolutely are in wait and see time.

Once we get full rules, or enough solid leaks to paint a whole pictures we can move past it. People who say “wait and see” who are holding out for the last 5% of unknowns might be grasping, but we are not at that point yet.

But we don’t know enough about 10th to doomcry the whole edition yet. Yes, there will be parts of it that are bad. But also parts that are good. Just like every edition of 40k ever. Or any other game. The overall balance of good/bad is unknown at this point. Now it might be that some of the things we do know are hard-stop dealbreakers for some people. That’s fair.

But we do not have enough of the whole picture on 10th to judge it.

Wayniac wrote:
Remember, GW is successful DESPITE everything they do, not because of it.

Questionable quality of 40k rules aside, reality disagrees with you.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

dominuschao wrote:
We've already seen balanced 10th is simplified balance. But now gambits exist. You losing? Okay reveal this card roll 2d6 on a 12+ score 30 vp. My current pick for first nerf.

You think it needs a nerf?

Honestly Idk man. But personally I do not like rules like this. It has potential to be unfun by hinging a game on one dice roll.
For example from what we know a gambit is something we choose, so they could be built for. That is fine. But 30 vp seems too much if scoring remains 90 pts up for grabs (10 is given).
If at the end of t3 you aren't ahead you'll need to do something drastic anyway. This is how I see this being built for, as a hail mary.
The further out a game gets the larger risks need to be taken to swing it back. In this case simply having a few fast msu units already designed for similar purposes is all you need.. to either deep strike or boost into 9" of a table corner and survive while possibly scoring BEL etc.
EoT 5 oops into a 10+ thats it. Not very likely but randomly successful about 1/6 of the time. This to potentially take a win from someone who outplayed you.
Imagine the top tables with this BS playing out as the fallback for eldar, GSC, daemons, harlies, drukhari, tau even or anyone with fast chaff.
In short I feel its a little too easy to build for the chance to flip a game they didn't earn.

Also on more reveals I wanna like 10th and I will try it but I don't really dig the change to overwatch either. I feel this sets the stage for untargetable ovewatch units to anchor around. IH MotA contemptors come to mind or tides or even HQ. Seems cool in theory but I think the power of this ability is very high and potentially really detrimental for assault based armies. For example imagine the dakka coldstar build of 30 shots reroll everything. Averages over 16 hits on OW. This unit is already a real big headache for armies like drukhari in good hands. If this or similar build still exists in 10th it can now OW on behalf of any unit in proximity to it.

ccs wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Remember, GW is successful DESPITE everything they do, not because of it.

Questionable quality of 40k rules aside, reality disagrees with you.

No, reality agrees. Any number of their decisions in the past would have ruined a smaller company. PP followed the GW playbook pretty closely and look at the state they're in.

GW: Finecast.
PP: tried to switch to some kind of plastic/resin hybrid which wasn't as bad as finecast but they had maufacturing issues. The Skorne hydra colossal being of particular note because it had a misprinted piece and PPs response was just "fix it yourself".

GW: high prices, monopose models
PP: same

GW: "Most playtested edition ever" turns out to be an unbalanced mess
PP: same thing

GW: Rules updates every six months. Get praised.
PP: Almost as frequent rules update, people complained it was hard to keep track of what was going on

There are probably more points of comparison but I can't be bothered to note them.

 Sim-Life wrote:

ccs wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Remember, GW is successful DESPITE everything they do, not because of it.

Questionable quality of 40k rules aside, reality disagrees with you.

No, reality agrees. Any number of their decisions in the past would have ruined a smaller company. PP followed the GW playbook pretty closely and look at the state they're in.

GW: Finecast.
PP: tried to switch to some kind of plastic/resin hybrid which wasn't as bad as finecast but they had maufacturing issues. The Skorne hydra colossal being of particular note because it had a misprinted piece and PPs response was just "fix it yourself".

GW: high prices, monopose models
PP: same

GW: "Most playtested edition ever" turns out to be an unbalanced mess
PP: same thing

GW: Rules updates every six months. Get praised.
PP: Almost as frequent rules update, people complained it was hard to keep track of what was going on

There are probably more points of comparison but I can't be bothered to note them.

Pretty much. GW's #1 thing seems to be that period where it had no real competition and managed to get traction in game stores across the world. That alone meant it was an uphill battle to get anything else going on, and it got worse over the years where now GW is firmly entrenched in most game stores and isn't budging. And I've personally see how difficult it is to even MENTION another game and not get told to feth off.

I have to think at this point it's mostly sunk cost, and people don't want to look like idiots for liking such a terrible set of rules. The miniatures are the only thing that can be pointed to as good quality, and they still have a lot of issues compared to "real" miniature companies that do actual model kits.

But yeah, PP did the same stuff GW does now and was busted for it, GW does it and its' like "Oh look at this, this is great!" It's really some kind of cognitive dissonance

When you are a company with millions of customers and operating on all continents, the rules side of the equation become far less relevant than the logistics and production.
And GW's ability to supply millions of customers worldwide didn't magically manifest out of the ether, it had to be built and maintained.

That's also why part of the reason it is so such an uphill battle to challenge them, because you can be great at writing rules and designing models but that means nothing if you know little about industrial processes or international logistics.

Given their recent supply issues I'd question if it's still a thing lol

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
The biggest problem with this discussion is that every single person involved has a different opinion on what "balance" actually means.

Some people define balance as: I can play any army I can dream up against any other army anyone else can dream up and always have a 50/50 shot at winning.

This is both completely impossible and not something GW (or a good chunk of the playerbase) wants(whether for presentation reasons or because a lot of people like list building). I'm sorry your 30 servitors backed up by footslogging boltpistol/chainsword assault marines isn't winning LVO, but the game is better off.

Some people define balance as: Every unit is competitively viable.

This is still probably impossible but is not totally unreasonable. GW have responded to this by rotating nerfs and buffs so that most units in an army get at least 1 format in the limelight.

Some people define balance as: Every game is decided entirely by player skill, regardless of what army they play.

This is a fair ask, but is also entirely impossible, even with mirrored forces. Even Chess isn't 100% player skill thanks to white's advantage. We also have dice to consider.

Some people define balance as: Every faction is competitively viable.

This is absolutely achievable and something GW has been making decent effort towards now that codexes aren't coming out broken to the wazoo. This is where GW has done the most in 10th to help themselves. The "2 page rules" means that it's literally a campaign book to get every struggling faction at least 1 reasonable build.
Not everyone is going to be happy with this, but frankly it's about the best any asymmetric game has ever managed.

And some people define balance as: The game plays exactly how I think it should play. Which is obviously nonsense.

I concur. The only thing more we can ask for is that competitively viable list don't involve completely ignoring the faction as GW presents it.

I’d add to that list My Codex doesn’t limit me to one of a handful of builds.

Consider the Eldar. Traditionally, every edition they’ve absolutely had a power build. But typically, those were the result of spamming a handful of units, with everything else being ignored.

Now exactly how superior those power builds were to “just take what you like and see how you get on” lists i for one couldn’t tell you. But the fact remains that those wanting to field Eldar in a competitive environment were more limited in choice compared to other armies. That the resulting lists were super nasty is of little comfort.

Compare to the current Necron Codex. Now, I gather the end result of that Codex isn’t great, and it’s definitely showing its heritage as one of the first out the gate for 9th. But…internally? There are few truly stand out, must have units, and really it’s just the Hexmark Destroyer which isn’t quite the full shilling.

I’d prefer things to be closer to the Necron Codex. Because when most Codexes can produce decent enough army lists with the majority of its contents, you’re more likely to see greater variety on the board. That in turn really muddies the meta, as What Am I Likely To Face becomes less predictable. Which means you may see fewer Stacked Lists trying to take advantage of the meta.

At least, y’know, that’s the theory!

Funnily enough the current Craftworlds section of the Aeldari codex is in the most ideal spot right now.

You actually have a range of viable and different subfactions to choose from, rather than one overpowering all. Certain units show up in every list, but there's still an impressive amount of variety in unit choice and overall builds which is made even more impressive by how many datasheets the book has. In the HQ slot alone you might have 1 Farseer/3PL's, or maybe 3 Farseers, or 2 Farseers/2PL's, or one singular Farseer and that's it, the Avatar shows up in lists, Autarchs even show up in lists, I've even see 0 Farseer lists that do well. An added benefit is that the army feels like how Aeldari should play; a lot of the units reflect their lore well on the tabletop.

And on top of all of this is that the army is not overpowered. It is right in the goldilocks zone of balance by most metrics.

dominuschao wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

dominuschao wrote:
We've already seen balanced 10th is simplified balance. But now gambits exist. You losing? Okay reveal this card roll 2d6 on a 12+ score 30 vp. My current pick for first nerf.

You think it needs a nerf?

Honestly Idk man. But personally I do not like rules like this. It has potential to be unfun by hinging a game on one dice roll.
For example from what we know a gambit is something we choose, so they could be built for. That is fine. But 30 vp seems too much if scoring remains 90 pts up for grabs (10 is given).
If at the end of t3 you aren't ahead you'll need to do something drastic anyway. This is how I see this being built for, as a hail mary.
The further out a game gets the larger risks need to be taken to swing it back. In this case simply having a few fast msu units already designed for similar purposes is all you need.. to either deep strike or boost into 9" of a table corner and survive while possibly scoring BEL etc.
EoT 5 oops into a 10+ thats it. Not very likely but randomly successful about 1/6 of the time. This to potentially take a win from someone who outplayed you.
Imagine the top tables with this BS playing out as the fallback for eldar, GSC, daemons, harlies, drukhari, tau even or anyone with fast chaff.
In short I feel its a little too easy to build for the chance to flip a game they didn't earn.

Also on more reveals I wanna like 10th and I will try it but I don't really dig the change to overwatch either. I feel this sets the stage for untargetable ovewatch units to anchor around. IH MotA contemptors come to mind or tides or even HQ. Seems cool in theory but I think the power of this ability is very high and potentially really detrimental for assault based armies. For example imagine the dakka coldstar build of 30 shots reroll everything. Averages over 16 hits on OW. This unit is already a real big headache for armies like drukhari in good hands. If this or similar build still exists in 10th it can now OW on behalf of any unit in proximity to it.

So missions will usually have 5 objectives and it looks as if there is no 'hold more'.

With 5 per objective you need to hold 3 to get max leaving your opponent with 2. Primary scoring will almost certainly be capped at 60.

So a game will either 20-20 to 30-20 before the choice to use gambits is made.

- If the opponent can still hold 3 objectives then your gambit will be a wash AT BEST.
- If the opponent can't hold 3 then you're down then a gambit might be a good decision provided you have more units available than they do, but it's still a risk.

They know where you need to go and just have to break units. Given a screamer killer can move 8, run, and shoot to 18 and force a battleshock with a -1 just from hits means being unbroken could be pretty difficult.

It will likely be rare for the gambit to win a game on it's own. And to get to that point you need to make some good battlefield level analysis to get a chance to pull it off.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:
Given their recent supply issues I'd question if it's still a thing lol

Implementing a new ERP with no issues is incredibly difficult to do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:
I have to think at this point it's mostly sunk cost, and people don't want to look like idiots for liking such a terrible set of rules.

If that's what you have to tell yourself so that you can feel superior then have at it, I guess.

On the Gambits?

We’ve seen one so far. And that is indeed a long shot.

I mean, stop and consider. Whilst we don’t yet have an idea of the lethality, other than it looking less than 9th Ed? The one we’ve seen can’t be played until Turn 5 at the earliest, yes?



I then need to have at least unit, with 9” of a board corner, not within my deployment zone to start qualifying.

I can then increase my odds of scoring those VP by having similarly positioned, getting no more than +3 to my roll.

Now. Do not get me wrong. If I’m winning the game, and my opponent pulls off that base 1 in 36 chance stunner? It could feel cheap.

But? Will my opponent be in much shape to be able to pull it off in the first place? If I’m ahead on points, chances are (and this is where ‘we don’t know what lethality looks like’ comes in) they’ve taken a mauling. So around turn 3, turn 4? It’s not gonna take a huge amount of in-game experience to see if they’re trying to position for that. And I can then plan accordingly. And indeed, blooter his units accordingly.

I suspect it may make for a more engaging game, as even when trouncing a foe, I still need to consider “what is your end game, beyond all your d00dz being little splutchy pancakes”.

[Ii]If[/i] all gambits are similarly high risk, I do nothing to prevent my opponent qualifying and they bag the game? I’ve only myself to blame.

I like gambits.

I don't like that they are based on a dice roll, but maybe it isn't a rule and this is only one example.

I would have preferred if they were alternative win conditions. Once you select a gamebit (which you don't reveal) you can no longer score points. If you can complete your gambit, you win.

Comeback mechanics are really good to have, but they can't be random.

I think the greatest trick GW ever did was to get so many people who obviously hate Warhammer to collect Warhammer.

If I were WotC I'd be asking GW for pointers.

I agree its a long shot. Maybe it adds some spice to a game that is otherwise over. Just feels cheese ball if it happens.

On scoring its still 15 per turn, 5 per objective max 3 in the cmd phase player whos turn it is. Could be 45 like arks but potentially 60.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:
I like gambits.

I don't like that they are based on a dice roll, but maybe it isn't a rule and this is only one example.

I would have preferred if they were alternative win conditions. Once you select a gamebit (which you don't reveal) you can no longer score points. If you can complete your gambit, you win.

Comeback mechanics are really good to have, but they can't be random.

They seem to be selectable. Way I read it you randomly discard one card. then choose your gambit in secret so you could plan for these as a fallback.

dominuschao wrote:
I agree its a long shot. Maybe it adds some spice to a game that is otherwise over. Just feels cheese ball if it happens.

Thats the point of hail mary plays. Its a big swing that will probably miss and you're leaving it up to chance. Honestly I've never seen anyone complain about a big hail mary play succeeding because the odds are always against it (hence why its a hail mary and not just a normal play). I'm sure some people do get pissy about them but honestly that's just bad sportsmanship. If someone pulls a last minute win against me with only like a <10% chance to actually pull it off then obviously fate decided to intervene.

I’d also argue anyone who’s entire game plan “I are do my gambit and I am the wins” is either gonna be really, really, really good? Or seriously needs their bumps felt and aren’t going to be a tricky opponent in the first place.

But let us also remember. Gambits swing both ways (oooer!).

I could be fairly comfortably ahead on points, but be able to see that my current position, though strong, is a bit tenuous.

Then? Because I keep my current score, I can consider switching up and going for my own Gambit. That can, potentially, turn a slim near pyrrhic victory, into a crushing defeat for my opponent.

Hell if I’m ahead on points by a super “my opponent will have to Gambit” degree? What better way to defend my victory than going for my own Gambit? Especially if I can’t reasonably score more than I already have.

I think it's great. In casual games. Who actually feels bad losing to a last minute Hail Mary play? Do you also get angry when you get hit by a blue shell in Mario Kart and lose? It's a casual game. That's just part of the fun. What's more important is keeping the game exciting past T3.

The competitive scene will likely reject this, but what they do doesn't matter for 99% of the player base.

 Eldarsif wrote:
I think the greatest trick GW ever did was to get so many people who obviously hate Warhammer to collect Warhammer.

If I were WotC I'd be asking GW for pointers.

It's less hate and more "You can do better, but you CHOOSE not to, and you're rewarded for it". With GW's resources there's no reason why they can't have great rules and models, and not a business model that makes you feel like you're being robbed blind with everything. Yet they do, and their "fans" overlook it while talking gak about other companies that try to do the same thing/better.

ccs wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
Remember, GW is successful DESPITE everything they do, not because of it.

Questionable quality of 40k rules aside, reality disagrees with you.

Even in my part of the world, if a company was selling a product, that would not work and work require the user to repair or fix on their own, and sometimes it would be unfixable, the company would be in a lot of trouble. Now that that doesn't mean everything GW does is bad, at idea level they do a ton of smart things. A patrol box based game, boarding action. Good ideas, not so good impelmentation. But stuff like AoS survived its first years, because of people who still wanted to play with their model and wanted to try out the new game. The players saved AoS by fixing stuff, and adding points to the game, inspite of what GW was trying to do with it. W40k is the GW flagship product and it has horrible player retention, is full of feels bad and gatcha moments for new players, but it has a core audiance of 30+ year olds, that are okey with how the game is. If any other table top game tried to sell people core rules on a quarterly reset schedul, made them wait for 2+ years for update rules and then told them, to more or less fix the balance problems on their own, then the companies game would be dead within a year. So all things considered I think, that Wayniac is right to a high degree here. GW really isn't helping itself with the way they run the game. I do they think will happen when my generation is 30+, that the 2-3 of us per store will replace the 20 guys who will be dead or too old to play?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eldarsif wrote:
I think the greatest trick GW ever did was to get so many people who obviously hate Warhammer to collect Warhammer.

If I were WotC I'd be asking GW for pointers.

It is not a trick. It is the privilage of being a monopolist. In my country there is 1 gigantic, state/ruling party supported gas/oil supplier. The company does stuff like telling people that they didn't lower the prices of oil to prepare us for war, and that we would have hurt ourself it gas was "too cheap". And then they go off and buy out all(as in the country) local TV, newspaper stations etc because this autum there will be elections.

GW is the same. They litteraly expect people to pay and wait for rules, which may not fix the players problems. While at the same time acting, as if the Real® way to play the game was to fix the problems on your own. It is mind blowing crazy to expect to work for a normal company, but when you are a monopolist it makes 100% sense. What will people do? It is the dominant game, new people often won't even know something besides warhammer exists, 10-20-30y veterans have so much sunk cost in to the game, that if they didn't leave they will swallow everything GW gives them. And if someone leaves they leave, and they are no longer a GW problem. In fact they can be burned by GW games so much, that they may not even try to pick up games from other companies. So it is a double win for GW. The only thing that GW needs for the holy trifect is to start making models that bio degrade, to "save the planet".

 Sim-Life wrote:

dominuschao wrote:
I agree its a long shot. Maybe it adds some spice to a game that is otherwise over. Just feels cheese ball if it happens.

Thats the point of hail mary plays. Its a big swing that will probably miss and you're leaving it up to chance. Honestly I've never seen anyone complain about a big hail mary play succeeding because the odds are always against it (hence why its a hail mary and not just a normal play). I'm sure some people do get pissy about them but honestly that's just bad sportsmanship. If someone pulls a last minute win against me with only like a <10% chance to actually pull it off then obviously fate decided to intervene.

If the opponent did a good job of removing my ability to hold 3 objectives and can still get solidly in the corners then they deserve the points for the counterplay.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
GW is the same. They litteraly expect people to pay and wait for rules, which may not fix the players problems. While at the same time acting, as if the Real® way to play the game was to fix the problems on your own. It is mind blowing crazy to expect to work for a normal company, but when you are a monopolist it makes 100% sense. What will people do? It is the dominant game, new people often won't even know something besides warhammer exists, 10-20-30y veterans have so much sunk cost in to the game, that if they didn't leave they will swallow everything GW gives them. And if someone leaves they leave, and they are no longer a GW problem. In fact they can be burned by GW games so much, that they may not even try to pick up games from other companies. So it is a double win for GW. The only thing that GW needs for the holy trifect is to start making models that bio degrade, to "save the planet".

And yet for all your clairvoyance... You're. Still. Here. Posting.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

Breton wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Not gonna lie, I've never played 2-4th but this 10th is by everything I'm reading, shaping up to be a re-vamped version of 2-3.5? I don't see 10th fixing all the foundational issues at GW that make this game a dumb mess. Rules team writers devoid of english writing education, game testers making "feels cool" more important than actually "plays correctly". A money focused mindset that puts player engagement behind player money engagement.

This is literally what WoTC were trying to achieve with DND:Next.

10th will be a giant bag of crap to older 40k players, and it will be fresh and exiting to the players who joined in 9th.

I pity the folks who just hang out for the lore. They're doomed.

3 was awful and it was mostly a statline reconfig that failed miserably - I see more of 5th or 6th here - they've all kind of melded together after all this time, but I mean the one with the Demi Companies - and two Demicompanies making a full company and getting free transport stuff. I'm not saying its going to go that far that way - but instead that (almost) everything is based on your Top Level Detachment. I wouldn't be surprised to see them also have the top-Det contain Sub-Dets that can be satisfied by 0/1-X of a list of units. Captain OR Chaplain. May also include Libbies etc.

If you can't differentiate 5th from 7th, perhaps it's time not to try to describe 3rd either...

There's a difference between differentiating between them and remembering which one was which - especially when may of them were just variations on each other. But its not hard to remember 2nd was far closer to Herohammer+ and 3rd was a rubber band effect correction.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Oh stop.


Just. Stop.

At least get some games under your belt before you declare the sky is falling.

when was the last time were "wait and see" resulted in a positive development with GW rules?

Right now, we have no idea about so much, all this doomsaying is silly.

We don’t know point costs.
We don’t know stratagems.
We don’t know detachment rules.
We don’t know most mission parameters.
We don’t know faction rules.

We’ve seen the merest sliver of info so far. Yet here we are, with people determined to paint this as The Worst Thing Ever, with basically sod all evidence to support it.

Yeah I joined Dakka just before the release of 9th and it’s the same with every release. The levels of pessimism are incredible it’s like people don’t want to enjoy it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:
It shouldn't be something you ever see. Remember, GW is successful DESPITE everything they do, not because of it.

This can’t be true, they have a product that is hoovered up by their huge customer base. They must be doing something right? Perhaps there’s a much larger community of GW customers who aren’t on Dakka that actually enjoy playing 40K

Breton wrote:

There's a difference between differentiating between them and remembering which one was which - especially when may of them were just variations on each other. But its not hard to remember 2nd was far closer to Herohammer+ and 3rd was a rubber band effect correction.

Dunno. Here 2nd was more about big guns. Bloodthirster isn't that scary when max he can kill is 1 model(you only could kill what you were in b2b and opponent wasn't required to bring models to contact and was able to shoot elsewhere) and then require leadership failure to get more kills. As long as you didn"' spam expensive characters and tanks expensive heroes never made points back.

And of course any squad leader could carry stasis grenade making expensive heroes liability.

Multiple assault cannons, cyclones, warp spiders...now that's where power was in.

I get skepticism. I genuinely do.

But the wailing and gnashing of teeth is comically premature.

Me? I’m genuinely excited for 10th. As covered many times elsewhere, due to professional pressures I’ve not really played in the past ten and a half years. Because commuting sucks.

So I fell out of step, and by the time 9th came around it was all just too much. The very basics remain the same, but stratagems, CP harvesting are alien to me. And given cunning use thereof is the key to victory, I found the game impenetrable.

10th however seems to have stripped it all back. Or at least that’s the promise being made.

And y’know? I’m not the only one. My oldest and besterest friend, who is a phenomenal painter, is also interested in getting back to the board. And with my FLGS just around the corner, we won’t hurt for venues.

The skepticism/wailing is based on seeing what GW has done every single edition over the past 30 years. At some point you stop falling for the "I'm sorry I hit you honey, I won't do it again I promise!" excuses and, even if you're hopeful like I am, that hope is tempered by knowing their track record says it'll happen again. One of GW's own 40k quotes of the day is "Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment" and I think it's pretty apt for this.

If anything, GW is the only company I've seen that continues to get a pass for always going back to their old ways, every single time and no matter the marketing BS they throw out to hype it up. Everyone else who tries gets rightly lambasted and usually ends up failing, but not GeeDubs. GW could sell you literal gak and people would be saying how it's not so bad, but if Warlord or Mantic or Privateer did the same thing, it'd be a laughingstock. Only GW gets away with doing this every time and always being forgiven.

Saw this same junk when 8th came. They hyped it as the literal second coming, it literally killed Warmachine overnight at my FLGS and had a 40k resurgence when people were all like 7th was trash but this is "new GW", they've changed guys trust me, and in true GW fashion turned into garbage once the codex creep started. Same in 9th. I have no reason to think 10th will be any different because GW's marketing doofuses say it will be.