10th Edition Rumour Roundup - in the grim darkness of the far future, there are only power levels

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.

**A Town Called Malus**

Not Online!!! wrote:

It's almost as if surpression should be something really harsh but not necesserily lethal... incidentally a certain other GW game does it just far better... again .... shame for all the xenos players tho.

Exactly. Want a visual example of how pinning should feel? Here (content warning, bad language, violence, gore. It's Band of Brothers):

Spoiler:

Easy company moves up the road, comes under fire from an MG-42. The men get into ditches and are completely pinned down until their officers get the men back up and moving forwards and organise their own machine gun fire to try and suppress the enemy.

**Eldarsif**

Spoiler:

A Town Called Malus wrote:
xttz wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
If you expand the design space to incorporate suppression as a mechanic which is separated from kills

That basically already exists though. There's various flavours of suppression already in use on different datasheets:

Battleshock test after being hit
Movement/charge penalty after being hit
Subtract 1 from hit rolls after being hit
Cannot benefit from cover after being hit

1) Battleshock is not pinning, it does nothing to prevent movement.
2) A modifier to movement or charge range is also not pinning, as it can be largely ignored on fast units. Oh no, my 10" move unit now only moves 8", a loss of 1/5 of my movement. Meanwhile the poor Ork went from 6" to 4", losing 1/3 of their movement. Pinning locks you in place regardless. That's the whole point.
3) A modifier rather than a flat change more heavily penalises units with lower BS while allowing those with better to, again, largely ignore it.
4) This is better applied to weapons such as grenades or flamethrowers to represent a weapon designed to flush people out of cover. When bullets start flying and you hunker down behind a wall, you don't suddenly become more vulnerable to the bullets making you do that.

Some factions have several of these options available and can pick combinations that best suit their list, which I'd argue is a better way to implement suppression than a single overly-harsh rule that's effective against almost all opposing units. Variation also encourages a wider range of units to be taken rather than just spamming 3 of every [suppression] datasheet.

And how many factions have none? The point of a single rule is that everyone can have access to it, and it is meant to be harsh and capable of affecting the majority of the units in the game because if it isn't then it is pointless. Units being immune to morale, including the entirety of the most played codex, Space Marines, was literally what made morale and the effects which were designed around it largely pointless in previous editions.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jidmah wrote:

Tell me that you haven't read the ruleset you are complaining about without telling me that you haven't read the ruleset you are complaining about.

[spoiler]

Tell me you read the word suppression, and didn't parse what the effects of suppression should be and how it should affect the game. My suggested rule also incorporated leadership, which meant that better trained units require more suppression to reliably pin them, as well as the ability to use your own abilities by your officer equivalents to get a suppressed unit back into the fight. That rule does neither. An Eldar Phoenix Lord is just as likely to suffer those effects as a unit of Gretchin.

Gee, it sure is a shame my Incubi are suppressed! So suppressed they moved up the board and charged the enemy! Sure, they swing a bit less effectively but I sure am glad that suppression allowed them to move as normal!

At the same time, the inclusion of all these rules at this size will mean much longer game. Now, I am not against other people liking longer games, but I reserve longer games for Star Trek Ascendancy and not Warhammer. If a game of Warhammer would take 6 hours I'd probably quit playing it and my guess is a swathes of other people. I imagine the reason for making 40k more arcade-y over the past editions is because people do not have unlimited time to play. It's why MCP and SW:SP have a growing appeal: they take less time to play.

I get it that people want indepth granularity in the system, with all kinds of simulations happening all around to simulate the horrors of trench warfare, but this is a mass appeal game. It wants people to be able to play in an hour or two without too much disruption to people's routine. It is the reason for the mass appeal as longer games will only appeal to a small minority compared to the current state.

**Not Online!!!**

The Red Hobbit wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:

It's almost as if surpression should be something really harsh but not necesserily lethal... incidentally a certain other GW game does it just far better... again .... shame for all the xenos players tho.

HH 2.0? If so, I keep hearing great things about it.

It's the old supression mechanic, but strengthened to disalow reactions for a surpressed unit. Also in HH2 there's basically no unit that is immune to moral, at most modifiers.
Further surpression has another companion rule, called shell shock (x) for which the x stands as a mali to your LD value. Hence why f.e. field ordnance of militia (especially the rocket piece) with shell shock 1 is devastating as it can shut down elite infantry, regardless of ranged or not. And just to ilustrate what i mean: average marine morale is 7 (8) when the squad still has a sarge. And no field artillery or arty in general isn't particulary deadly since most arty pieces have AP 4 so PA units still get saves against it. So a battery of let's say 2 pieces for 85 pts can surpress a tac squad about 45% and kills about 1-2 marines at most (that already is an above average result) if the sargent is still alive, hence why you want some snipers or more surpressing weapons to force more checks. Or if the sargent is down that escalates upwards. And the same applies to veterans.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:

It's almost as if surpression should be something really harsh but not necesserily lethal... incidentally a certain other GW game does it just far better... again .... shame for all the xenos players tho.

Exactly. Want a visual example of how pinning should work? Here (content warning, bad language, violence, gore. It's Band of Brothers):

Spoiler:

Easy company moves up the road, comes under fire from an MG-42. The men get into ditches and are completely pinned down until their officers get the men back up and moving forwards.

Incidentally also a great scene on why grenades and launchers should be better at anti cover duty. But baby steps i guess.

**Gadzilla666**

Not Online!!! wrote:
The Red Hobbit wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:

It's almost as if surpression should be something really harsh but not necesserily lethal... incidentally a certain other GW game does it just far better... again .... shame for all the xenos players tho.

HH 2.0? If so, I keep hearing great things about it.

It's the old supression mechanic, but strengthened to disalow reactions for a surpressed unit. Also in HH2 there's basically no unit that is immune to moral, at most modifiers.
Further surpression has another companion rule, called shell shock (x) for which the x stands as a mali to your LD value. Hence why f.e. field ordnance of militia (especially the rocket piece) with shell shock 1 is devastating as it can shut down elite infantry, regardless of ranged or not. And just to ilustrate what i mean: average marine morale is 7 (8) when the squad still has a sarge. And no field artillery or arty in general isn't particulary deadly since most arty pieces have AP 4 so PA units still get saves against it.

Then throw in forced Night Fighting. Which, one particular Legion known for using terror tactics, is especially good at. (Best. Night Lords. Rules. Everrrrr.)

**stonehorse**

While it would be nice to have arcs, pinning, suppressing fire, etc.

I think those things are work in games that are aiming to be a simulation of conflict.

40k is a game where super soldiers travel through hell to punch a physical manifestation of desire witb an electrified over sized fist.

It is far from being able even close to be suitable for a simulation type game. Instead it focuses more on being fun.

If people want serious, simulation games (which I play myself from time to time), they exists. But those are world's apart from what 40k is.

Best way to do arcs/facings and such is with hex grid battlefields... which are very common in tabletop wargames.

**Gadzilla666**

stonehorse wrote:
While it would be nice to have arcs, pinning, suppressing fire, etc.

I think those things are work in games that are aiming to be a simulation of conflict.

40k is a game where super soldiers travel through hell to punch a physical manifestation of desire witb an electrified over sized fist.

It is far from being able even close to be suitable for a simulation type game. Instead it focuses more on being fun.

If people want serious, simulation games (which I play myself from time to time), they exists. But those are world's apart from what 40k is.

Exxxxceeepppttt......all of those things existed in 40k prior to 8th edition, and continue to exist in 30k. Please, try again.

**Overread**

I do think when it comes to things like moral breaking, pinning, fire arcs and so forth we sometimes have to take a step back. The game will likely only have 6 turns in most situations with turns 1 often being more of a "get into position" turn.

So you don't have all that many turns to work with; something like pinning lasting for one or two turns is really very powerful as that's near 50% of the game that those pinned models are almost useless (1 turn for moving, 2 turns pinning).

I do think some granular mechanics just work better in a game that's going to last longer or have more active turns. If you had 20 turns now you can take 2 or 5 our being pinned down and still resolve them and have a fighting chance.

But at 6 turns it can become a mechanic that is crippling, easily broken or just "un fun" To play against.

Then again we have had tank-shock were tanks would rattle and do nothing for a turn. So we have had it in the past

**Not Online!!!**

Eldarsif wrote:

At the same time, the inclusion of all these rules at this size will mean much longer game. Now, I am not against other people liking longer games, but I reserve longer games for Star Trek Ascendancy and not Warhammer. If a game of Warhammer would take 6 hours I'd probably quit playing it and my guess is a swathes of other people. I imagine the reason for making 40k more arcade-y over the past editions is because people do not have unlimited time to play. It's why MCP and SW:SP have a growing appeal: they take less time to play.

I get it that people want indepth granularity in the system, with all kinds of simulations happening all around to simulate the horrors of trench warfare, but this is a mass appeal game. It wants people to be able to play in an hour or two without too much disruption to people's routine. It is the reason for the mass appeal as longer games will only appeal to a small minority compared to the current state.

HH plays rather well in the 1-2 hour bracket aswell, especially if you run the "2000" pts 40k standard, if you are familiar with the rules and at 3k which is HH standard your looking at an 3 hour investment.
and Familiarisation is also not that big of a deal either since despite being "more complex" on the simulation front, it's not all that much diffrent.

**A Town Called Malus**

Tactical choices are not in conflict with a game being fun.

In fact they usually add to the fun as the players feel more invested in the game as it is rewarding being an active participant and thinking about it.

Do smart thing, good thing happens as a direct result of your choices, happy little rush of hormones that you did a thing and it worked.

**The Red Hobbit**

Not Online!!! wrote:
The Red Hobbit wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:

It's almost as if surpression should be something really harsh but not necesserily lethal... incidentally a certain other GW game does it just far better... again .... shame for all the xenos players tho.

HH 2.0? If so, I keep hearing great things about it.

It's the old supression mechanic, but strengthened to disalow reactions for a surpressed unit. Also in HH2 there's basically no unit that is immune to moral, at most modifiers.
Further surpression has another companion rule, called shell shock (x) for which the x stands as a mali to your LD value. Hence why f.e. field ordnance of militia (especially the rocket piece) with shell shock 1 is devastating as it can shut down elite infantry, regardless of ranged or not. And just to ilustrate what i mean: average marine morale is 7 (8) when the squad still has a sarge. And no field artillery or arty in general isn't particulary deadly since most arty pieces have AP 4 so PA units still get saves against it. So a battery of let's say 2 pieces for 85 pts can surpress a tac squad about 45% and kills about 1-2 marines at most (that already is an above average result) if the sargent is still alive, hence why you want some snipers or more surpressing weapons to force more checks. Or if the sargent is down that escalates upwards. And the same applies to veterans.

Ah very cool, glad to see HH is still innovating. I guess it's a lot easier when every army has a very similar pool of units to balance and you can focus more on gameplay and tactics.

**Gadzilla666**

Overread wrote:
I do think when it comes to things like moral breaking, pinning, fire arcs and so forth we sometimes have to take a step back. The game will likely only have 6 turns in most situations with turns 1 often being more of a "get into position" turn.

So you don't have all that many turns to work with; something like pinning lasting for one or two turns is really very powerful as that's near 50% of the game that those pinned models are almost useless (1 turn for moving, 2 turns pinning).

I do think some granular mechanics just work better in a game that's going to last longer or have more active turns. If you had 20 turns now you can take 2 or 5 our being pinned down and still resolve them and have a fighting chance.

But at 6 turns it can become a mechanic that is crippling, easily broken or just "un fun" To play against.

Then again we have had tank-shock were tanks would rattle and do nothing for a turn. So we have had it in the past

Again, it works just fine in 30k. Average game length? 5-6 turns.

**Not Online!!!**

Overread wrote:
I do think when it comes to things like moral breaking, pinning, fire arcs and so forth we sometimes have to take a step back. The game will likely only have 6 turns in most situations with turns 1 often being more of a "get into position" turn.

So you don't have all that many turns to work with; something like pinning lasting for one or two turns is really very powerful as that's near 50% of the game that those pinned models are almost useless (1 turn for moving, 2 turns pinning).

I do think some granular mechanics just work better in a game that's going to last longer or have more active turns. If you had 20 turns now you can take 2 or 5 our being pinned down and still resolve them and have a fighting chance.

But at 6 turns it can become a mechanic that is crippling, easily broken or just "un fun" To play against.

Then again we have had tank-shock were tanks would rattle and do nothing for a turn. So we have had it in the past

Yeah IF your force is built in a way that it can't deal with pinning. And this is were another hang up is in 40k, the Force org chart is basically gone, you can spam whatevs and the core mechanics of the game barely punish you for it.

In 30k , sure pinning is painfull for infantry. Tanks don't care, neither do dreadnoughts. Tanks very much care about the Heavy support marine squad with lascannons though, so maybee just maybee people being forced to think in actual combined arms terms is a good thing. Just saying.

**Tyel**

I think the core problem (if its a problem) is that 40k is a game where you only make 5 moves. Its why all this fiddly stuff doesn't really work.

"I do X so my opponent counters X so I do Y which he counters again so I do Z etc" makes sense on paper - but in practice it doesn't, because now its now turn 4 and you've just sat moving around in your deployment zone. Either you can stick stuff in their flank on say turns 2 or 3 - or you can't. Its not skill if you can.

In the same way, given units only get to shoot a few times, if you can suppress/pin/shock them so they can't do anything for a turn, that's often functionally very close to them just being killed. Your opponent has another "move" to deal with them.

I don't think alternate activations is some massive cure all, but if you want 40k to have all these interactions then something like that - or perhaps better still whatever you'd all Infinity's system - is probably necessary. But now you are looking at a completely different game.

**A Town Called Malus**

Overread wrote:
I do think when it comes to things like moral breaking, pinning, fire arcs and so forth we sometimes have to take a step back. The game will likely only have 6 turns in most situations with turns 1 often being more of a "get into position" turn.

So you don't have all that many turns to work with; something like pinning lasting for one or two turns is really very powerful as that's near 50% of the game that those pinned models are almost useless (1 turn for moving, 2 turns pinning).

I do think some granular mechanics just work better in a game that's going to last longer or have more active turns. If you had 20 turns now you can take 2 or 5 our being pinned down and still resolve them and have a fighting chance.

But at 6 turns it can become a mechanic that is crippling, easily broken or just "un fun" To play against.

Then again we have had tank-shock were tanks would rattle and do nothing for a turn. So we have had it in the past

That's why you add in limited counterplay (officers being able to negate pinning via spending one of their own actions, for example).

You have 2 units pinned down, your officer can get one of them back into the fight this round. Which one do you pick? Do you even need either of those units at their full strength this turn? If no, then perhaps your officer can do something else instead, such as lead the charge to take out the enemy machine gun you managed to pin down last turn. After all, once the MG is no longer there, your opponents ability to pin you drastically reduces, which means that you could sacrifice two units acting effectively now for whole turns where all of your units are able to act effectively as the enemy has lost their key suppression unit.

**Not Online!!!**

The Red Hobbit wrote:

Ah very cool, glad to see HH is still innovating. I guess it's a lot easier when every army has a very similar pool of units to balance and you can focus more on gameplay and tactics.

Actually, profile differentiation is pretty high surprisingly since the WS table has also been uncramped and unit types are a thing, meaning that 1 pip in ws translates to quite a bit better performance in melee. Further Admech and militia both have very big spreads in their profiles (and further modifications due to specialisation and customisation) and NVM custodes and sisters of silence. So despite being often portrayed as a marine fest (and don't get me wrong HH is one) it isn't as one dimensonal as some point out.

**Gadzilla666**

Tyel wrote:
I think the core problem (if its a problem) is that 40k is a game where you only make 5 moves. Its why all this fiddly stuff doesn't really work.

"I do X so my opponent counters X so I do Y which he counters again so I do Z etc" makes sense on paper - but in practice it doesn't, because now its now turn 4 and you've just sat moving around in your deployment zone. Either you can stick stuff in their flank on say turns 2 or 3 - or you can't. Its not skill if you can.

In the same way, given units only get to shoot a few times, if you can suppress/pin/shock them so they can't do anything for a turn, that's often functionally very close to them just being killed. Your opponent has another "move" to deal with them.

I don't think alternate activations is some massive cure all, but if you want 40k to have all these interactions then something like that - or perhaps better still whatever you'd all Infinity's system - is probably necessary. But now you are looking at a completely different game.

Again: 30k, average game length: 5-6 turns. Pinning works just fine. And if you have a problem with Pinning, then you'll probably have a problem with Battleshock. Especially when dealing with armies/units that can take advantage of it. There's a reason why I picked out Raptors and Warp Talons as my "high points" in the CSM Index.

**Not Online!!!**

A Town Called Malus wrote:

That's why you add in limited counterplay (officers being able to negate pinning via spending one of their own actions, for example).

You have 2 untis pinned down, your officer can get one of them back into the fight this round. Which one do you pick? Do you need either of those units at their full strength this turn? If no, then perhaps your officer can do something else instead, such as lead the charge to take out the enemy machine gun you managed to pin down last turn. After all, once the MG is no longer there, your opponents ability to pin you drastically reduces, which means that you could sacrifice two units acting effectively now for turns where all of your units are able to act effectively as the enemy has lost their key suppression unit.

Or actually let General Zufall decide with an LD check. Afterall this is a wargame and General Zufall is a big part of war and wargames as a certain german once put it....

**tneva82**

Eldarsif wrote:

At the same time, the inclusion of all these rules at this size will mean much longer game. Now, I am not against other people liking longer games, but I reserve longer games for Star Trek Ascendancy and not Warhammer. If a game of Warhammer would take 6 hours I'd probably quit playing it and my guess is a swathes of other people. I imagine the reason for making 40k more arcade-y over the past editions is because people do not have unlimited time to play. It's why MCP and SW:SP have a growing appeal: they take less time to play.

Of course they could cut down rerolls and silly pointless dice rolls.

As is as editions go by the game has been getting slower and slower so by removing those "slow" things they have made game go SLOWER...

**kodos**

Eldarsif wrote:
At the same time, the inclusion of all these rules at this size will mean much longer game.

yet other games have all those and play faster than 40k (as did 40k in the past with such elements) so is not necessarily that which will cause it to slow down

**stonehorse**

Gadzilla666 wrote:
stonehorse wrote:
While it would be nice to have arcs, pinning, suppressing fire, etc.

I think those things are work in games that are aiming to be a simulation of conflict.

40k is a game where super soldiers travel through hell to punch a physical manifestation of desire witb an electrified over sized fist.

It is far from being able even close to be suitable for a simulation type game. Instead it focuses more on being fun.

If people want serious, simulation games (which I play myself from time to time), they exists. But those are world's apart from what 40k is.

Exxxxceeepppttt......all of those things existed in 40k prior to 8th edition, and continue to exist in 30k. Please, try again.

They did, yes. As I have said on here previously, I think 3rd edition is the best edition of 40k, so far from ignoring the previous editions.

That all said and done, modern 40k, is leaning more into being fun and accessible. The designers have realised that the game plays quicker and has less barriers to entry in the streamlined version that they have envisioned for 10th.

It isn't going to be a game for people who want a deep level of meticulous planning, it is instead going for fun and ease of play.

A bit like comparing Rhino Hero to say Twiligjt Imperial. Both games, but one will have a far bigger catchment of people it can appeal to other the other.

Also, cut the snark lad, it just comes across as petulant.

**Tsagualsa**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Overread wrote:
I do think when it comes to things like moral breaking, pinning, fire arcs and so forth we sometimes have to take a step back. The game will likely only have 6 turns in most situations with turns 1 often being more of a "get into position" turn.

So you don't have all that many turns to work with; something like pinning lasting for one or two turns is really very powerful as that's near 50% of the game that those pinned models are almost useless (1 turn for moving, 2 turns pinning).

I do think some granular mechanics just work better in a game that's going to last longer or have more active turns. If you had 20 turns now you can take 2 or 5 our being pinned down and still resolve them and have a fighting chance.

But at 6 turns it can become a mechanic that is crippling, easily broken or just "un fun" To play against.

Then again we have had tank-shock were tanks would rattle and do nothing for a turn. So we have had it in the past

That's why you add in limited counterplay (officers being able to negate pinning via spending one of their own actions, for example).

You have 2 units pinned down, your officer can get one of them back into the fight this round. Which one do you pick? Do you even need either of those units at their full strength this turn? If no, then perhaps your officer can do something else instead, such as lead the charge to take out the enemy machine gun you managed to pin down last turn. After all, once the MG is no longer there, your opponents ability to pin you drastically reduces, which means that you could sacrifice two units acting effectively now for whole turns where all of your units are able to act effectively as the enemy has lost their key suppression unit.

I recently fell in love with ~~Steffi Graf~~ Chain of Command, which does stuff like that with great effect and little rules ballast; it might be generally suited for a port of something between 40k and Epic. Their innovative Patrol Phase/Jumping off point mechanic has a lot of what i was missing in regular 40k for editions, and it still plays rather briskly.

Sadly, GW seems to be on a continued trend to take away things each edition to focus more on 'boarfamey' conflict where you win if you get a good combo going and throw the most dice. We lost detailled vehicles, then vehicle damage tables (good riddance!), detailled grenades, detailled psychology, pinning/suppression, the psychic phase, and now we lost customizable equipment and wargear. It's understandable in view of their goal of cramming more miniatures on the table to make you buy things, but the actual game gets shallower and shallower. Someone on here recently said it feels more and more like a TCG with miniatures instead of cards, and the more i think about that the more it seems to hit the problem on the head.

**Gadzilla666**

stonehorse wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:
stonehorse wrote:
While it would be nice to have arcs, pinning, suppressing fire, etc.

I think those things are work in games that are aiming to be a simulation of conflict.

40k is a game where super soldiers travel through hell to punch a physical manifestation of desire witb an electrified over sized fist.

It is far from being able even close to be suitable for a simulation type game. Instead it focuses more on being fun.

If people want serious, simulation games (which I play myself from time to time), they exists. But those are world's apart from what 40k is.

Exxxxceeepppttt......all of those things existed in 40k prior to 8th edition, and continue to exist in 30k. Please, try again.

They did, yes. As I have said on here previously, I think 3rd edition is the best edition of 40k, so far from ignoring the previous editions.

That all said and done, modern 40k, is leaning more into being fun and accessible. The designers have realised that the game plays quicker and has less barriers to entry in the streamlined version that they have envisioned for 10th.

It isn't going to be a game for people who want a deep level of meticulous planning, it is instead going for fun and ease of play.

A bit like comparing Rhino Hero to say Twiligjt Imperial. Both games, but one will have a far bigger catchment of people it can appeal to other the other.

Also, cut the snark lad, it just comes across as petulant.

Whether it's "fun" or "easy to play" remains to be seen, and is subject to personal preferences. And it doesn't look to be as much of either as 3rd edition was.

As for the "Snark", I'm long past "lad", and see no reason to cut "slack" to another "old timer".

**Not Online!!!**

stonehorse wrote:
[

They did, yes. As I have said on here previously, I think 3rd edition is the best edition of 40k, so far from ignoring the previous editions.

That all said and done, modern 40k, is leaning more into being fun and accessible. The designers have realised that the game plays quicker and has less barriers to entry in the streamlined version that they have envisioned for 10th.

It isn't going to be a game for people who want a deep level of meticulous planning, it is instead going for fun and ease of play.

A bit like comparing Rhino Hero to say Twiligjt Imperial. Both games, but one will have a far bigger catchment of people it can appeal to other the other.

Also, cut the snark lad, it just comes across as petulant.

But is that really the case?
Remember DoW? the series? Dow1 was a clasic RTS, right. DoW 2 was a CoH 2 clone which simplified basebuilding but expanded combat complexity was already a bit less popular comparativly to the vast increase of gamers. And then , in the search of the illusive "broader player population" they turned DoW3 into a wannabe moba... and that failed. Hard, despite arguably tapping into the single largest playerbase known to this world i believe (not counting mobile games here), and despite viedogames being probably far more accessible as a hobby as TTWG.

40k had a really successfull niche, one that nowadays get's more and more filled by 30k and other derivatives since arguably 8th onwards.

Accessability is also an issue. At this stage certain armies cost as much as a fully fledged gaming PC where i live, further the rules complexity has arguably merely been pushed to the datasheets instead of the core rules... so is it really MORE accesible?

**a_typical_hero**

stonehorse wrote:
That all said and done, modern 40k, is leaning more into being fun and accessible. The designers have realised that the game plays quicker and has less barriers to entry in the streamlined version that they have envisioned for 10th.

It isn't going to be a game for people who want a deep level of meticulous planning, it is instead going for fun and ease of play.

A bit like comparing Rhino Hero to say Twiligjt Imperial. Both games, but one will have a far bigger catchment of people it can appeal to other the other.

I don't really see how any of this applies to 10th edition. It is still 40k and if you only ever played 3rd edition until now and would jump into a game of 10th, everything would feel familiar even though details are different. Talking about core rules. You didn't plan more or less in any edition MAYBE bar 8th or 9th when you would think about when to set up a stratagem combo. It was definitely not less fun or less accessable for having to calculate a few numbers together prior to any battle.

If anything, you could make the counter-argument that now it is less intuitive which loadout is more powerful. While points might not be accurate, it was clear from reading the associated costs that a +5pts flamer would be a smaller upgrade than a +20pts lascannon.

**His Master's Voice**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Also, people responding with arguments against "magic" flanking are ignoring the impact of the second of the Fs, Fix.

If you expand the design space to incorporate suppression as a mechanic which is separated from kills, then entirely new metrics for weapon usefulness open up. You can give certain weapons a rule called Suppression (X), where successful hits, not wounds or casualties, inflict a leadership test with a negative modifier equal to the number of hits scored by that weapon, up to a maximum of X. Multiple suppression weapons in a unit pool their hits, but only the highest modifier on the weapons is applied. If failed, the targeted unit is pinned, which shuts down movement until they can recover, either by leader effects (commissar shooting one, an officer character giving them a specific order, etc.) or by passing a leadership test at the end of their next movement phase. While pinned, a unit may not move except to fall back and it reduces its BS to a flat 6+. Infantry and Cavalry models may be Pinned. Vehicles may not, monstrous creatures are possible but reduce the penalty maybe.

We've now opened up an entirely new space for ranged weapons to occupy which doesn't rely on lethality. So now players get to make more meaningful choices on the weapons in their army, and the resulting battlefield role of their units, beyond just "does gun A kill better than gun B?"

I'm guessing you're a fan of Mortal Wounds?

**Billicus**

Suppression mechanics are cool in games like Bolt Action and Legion but there's so much disparity between the different troops in the 40k universe it would be difficult to implement. The vast majority of characters would need to be functionally immune to suppression, you don't suppress a space marine squad with a heavy stubber or mortars but the same weapon would very easily suppress baseline human troops or the flimsier xenos. It's a great design space for tabletops but not one I credit GW with the ability to do.

**Not Online!!!**

Billicus wrote:
Suppression mechanics are cool in games like Bolt Action and Legion but there's so much disparity between the different troops in the 40k universe it would be difficult to implement. The vast majority of characters would need to be functionally immune to suppression, you don't suppress a space marine squad with a heavy stubber or mortars but the same weapon would very easily suppress baseline human troops or the flimsier xenos. It's a great design space for tabletops but not one I credit GW with the ability to do.

correction, not one 40k GW rulesteam can do. But i do share the sentiment.

**Tsagualsa**

Billicus wrote:
Suppression mechanics are cool in games like Bolt Action and Legion but there's so much disparity between the different troops in the 40k universe it would be difficult to implement. The vast majority of characters would need to be functionally immune to suppression, you don't suppress a space marine squad with a heavy stubber or mortars but the same weapon would very easily suppress baseline human troops or the flimsier xenos. It's a great design space for tabletops but not one I credit GW with the ability to do.

That was a major problem in Rogue Trader and Second Edition: a lot of things like many aspects of psychology, wacky grenades, setting people on fire, fear/terror and so on existed in theory, but did not apply to Space Marines practically because their armour and their psychological conditioning rendered them immune to large swathes of it. These rules effectively penalized non-marine forces to varying degrees (mostly dependent on how marine-like they were), and with Marines being (or increasingly becoming) the de-facto baseline that led to all sorts of problems.

**ERJAK**

Gadzilla666 wrote:
stonehorse wrote:
While it would be nice to have arcs, pinning, suppressing fire, etc.

I think those things are work in games that are aiming to be a simulation of conflict.

40k is a game where super soldiers travel through hell to punch a physical manifestation of desire witb an electrified over sized fist.

It is far from being able even close to be suitable for a simulation type game. Instead it focuses more on being fun.

If people want serious, simulation games (which I play myself from time to time), they exists. But those are world's apart from what 40k is.

Exxxxceeepppttt......all of those things existed in 40k prior to 8th edition, and continue to exist in 30k. Please, try again.

And those mechanics were bad and should feel bad.

Firing arcs had no impact on the game except making vehicles worse and creating arguments about where the 'front' of units like Fire Prisms technically ended. Pinning was functionally the same as just killing the unit, just much lower investment.

Maybe they figured it for Heresy, but the 40k version of those mechanics were terrible.

**Tyran**

Not Online!!! wrote:

But is that really the case?

Seems to be, there is no evidence in loss of sales and plenty of increases.

40k had a really successfull niche, one that nowadays get's more and more filled by 30k and other derivatives since arguably 8th onwards.

7th edition almost killed the game, which taught GW they couldn't rely on that niche.

Moreover I believe it was a stroke of brilliance to create 30k. That way 40k could go to seek a larger player base while 30k "covered the rear" and filled the niche left behind.